Biden did better in Minnesota than Trump did in Texas

[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.        

[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).

[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.

[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.     

[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).  

[neostassenite31]

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.

The "rural" parts of Minnesota are probably already close to 70% Republican but the mid sized cities outside the Twin Cities Metro are are Democratic leaning. Duluth 68% D, Rochester 59% D, Mankato 59% D, St Cloud 52% D, Moorhead 57% D.  All trended D this past election.  70% in greater MN is not going to happen.

Talk Election, 2015:

70% is not gonna happen in Rural Ohio

He's not talking about rural areas in that post.

So, getting 70% in the entirety of Greater Minnesota (all regional cities + TC and other exurbs + rural areas) will flip the state, though only by 1-2 points (0.45 x 20 = 9 point statewide swing). This of course assumes that the margin in the Twin Cities and its percentage share of the total statewide vote remain completely static.

For example, if the metro area swings 5 points to the left while the rest of the state swings 20 points to the right, then 0.55 x 5 = 3 points statewide swing due to the metro, and 7 - 9 + 3 = and the Dems would win MN by the same margin as in 2016.

The Greater Minnesota versus the Twin Cities dichotomy is a pretty false concept. Minnesota has a bachelor degree+ rate (34.8%) that is almost identical to Washington (34.5%) and New York (35.3%). This educational attainment distribution is the average of the entire state and not just a Twin Cities exclusive phenomena: the average rural Greater MN county is about 5-10% more college-educated than the average rural OH or IA county while the average exurban/regional center Greater MN county is 10-15% more college-educated than their OH or IA counterparts. The reason that MN doesn't vote like WA or NY is because evangelical Christians make up a much higher percentage of MN's population (compared to WA) and the state is extremely white (compared to NY).

Still, relatively low educational attainment and and high religiosity (esp. white evangelicals) is what makes many rural counties favorable to the GOP, not geography. Regional centers in Greater MN, counties such as Olmsted, Nicollet, Blue Earth, Clay, and the eastern tip of Stearns all have bachelor degree+ rates between 30%-40% just like the state at-large, making it difficult for Republicans to get to 70% in Minnesota minus the seven county metro area.