Minnesota

[Jamison5]

While many think Minnesota is out of reach for Republicans long-term, I am hesitant to come to that conclusion. I am certainly not optimistic about Minnesota the way I was after 2016, and of course I badly want to see it go Republican for once, but I wouldn't write it off. Indeed it trended left by 3 points relative to the NPV, but it voted to the right of where it did in 2012.

2020: D+2.66
2016: R+0.58
2012: D+3.83
2008: D+2.97
2004: D+5.94
2000: D+1.88
1996: D+7.62
1992: D+6.07
1988: D+14.75
1984: D+18.40

Other than 2000 and 2016, 2020 was the closest PVI for MN since 1960. In both 2000 and 2016, it was a Republican challenger after a term-limited Democrat's term and there was a huge 3rd party vote share both times. This means 2020 was the most Republican-friendly since 1960 without 3rd party influence. Indeed the trend in western Hennepin County looks very bad for Republicans and it is, but I don't think the Republicans are maxed out in the rest of the state. In the very long term, MN may be gone because of the Twin Cities growing, but in the near future if Republicans have a good year as the challenger and/or if there is a 5% or more 3rd party share, it is absolutely winnable.

Am I right or am I just desperate to end the Democrats' streak there?

[100% pro-choice no matter what]

Minnesota will not be competitive in 2024 or maybe even 2028. There is long-term potential, but with the GOP going in the batsh**t crazy direction it is going the party's total appeal is going down with each day.

[Frodo]

Republicans haven’t even been able to completely take over the Iron Range, the one part of the state I thought was ripe pickings and well within their reach.  If they can’t do that, what hope do they have at the statewide level?

[‎]

I don't expect Minnesota to be competitive anytime soon. Why? Minneapolis.

When do you expect Minnesota to flip red??? This is based on how it nearly did in 2016 and has some of the right demographics outside its main metro area.

There are extreme circumstances that could cause Minnesota to flip to the Republicans, but it is not likely to occur anytime soon. The main reason is the fact that the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area is both becoming bluer and is growing faster than the rest of the state, and the non-Minneapolis parts of the state aren't red enough to keep it competitve.


Just look at the numbers:

At the time of the 2010 census, the parts of the Minneapolis metro area which were in Minnesota totalled 3.22 million people, making up 60.7% of Minnesota's population (which was 5.30 million).

And in 2019, the parts of the Minneapolis metro area in Minnesota were estimated to hold 3.51 million people, making up 65.3% of the state's population (at 5.64 million).

So this shows that the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area is growing as a percentage of Minnesota's population, very rapidly in fact.


To top it off, the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area is also becoming more Democratic (calculations below are only including counties in Minnesota and are using two-party vote share only):

• In 2012, Minneapolis's metro area voted for Obama 56.4% - 43.6% (margin of 12.8%).
• In 2016, Minneapolis's metro area voted for Clinton 57.6% - 42.4% (margin of 15.2%).
• In 2020, Minneapolis's metro area voted for Biden 60.6% - 39.4% (margin of 21.2%).

Both of these statistics show that increasing Republican margins in the non-Minneapolis areas of Minnesota won't be enough for a win because the metro area, as well as increasing its share of the population, is becoming more Democratic. This strikes in sharp contrast with the rust belt states Michigan and Ohio, where the Detroit and Cleveland metro areas are both shrinking and becoming more republican.


There are two factors Republicans must change to win Minnesota.

The first thing that must happen is that Republican margins in the non-Minneapolis parts of the state must increase. This strategy, combined with keeping Democrats from making large gains in Minnesota, led Donald Trump to perform well in Minnesota in 2016. Just take a look at the statistics below:

• In 2012, Minnesota exc. Minneapolis voted for Romney 50.2% - 49.8% (margin of 0.4%).
• In 2016, Minnesota exc. Minneapolis voted for Trump 60.4% - 39.6% (margin of 20.8%).
• In 2020, Minnesota exc. Minneapolis voted for Trump 58.3% - 41.7% (margin of 16.6%).

As you can see, Donald Trump was able to turn non-Minneapolis Minnesota towards himself in 2016, which made Minnesota unexpectedly close, and it is theoretically possible for a Republican candidate to improve on Trump's margins in non-Minneapolis Minnesota.

The issue is, though, that Republicans cannot rely on this strategy alone, as was exemplified in 2016. Even with Donald Trump's massive gains in the non-Minneapolis parts of Minnesota, he wasn't able to win because he couldn't decrease the Minneapolis metro's Democratic margins, which actually swung somewhat towards Clinton.


This brings us to our second factor which must change for a Republican victory in Minnesota, decreasing Democrat margins in the Minneapolis metro.

This is especially imperative because this part of the state is growing faster than the state as a whole and makes a majority of the state's population already. I find this quite unlikely, though, without a large realignment taking place.


What Republicans should be targeting is getting their percentage margins in non-Minneapolis Minnesota to be double the Democrats' percentage margins in the Minneapolis metro.

[THG]

Minnesota is to Republicans what Texas may be to Democrats.

It can be described as fools gold.

[Minnesota Mike]

Other than 2000 and 2016, 2020 was the closest PVI for MN since 1960.

That may have some thing to do with there being a Minnesotan on the ticket  5 times.

1964 Humphrey VP
1968 Humphrey P
1976 Mondale VP
1980 Mondale VP
1984 Mondale P.

[Minnesota Mike]

Republicans haven’t even been able to completely take over the Iron Range, the one part of the state I thought was ripe pickings and well within their reach.  If they can’t do that, what hope do they have at the statewide level?

There are simply not enough people on the Iron Range to make that big of difference.  The Iron Range is not all of NE Minnesota as some people seem to assume. Depending on how you define it there may be 100,000-200,000 people who live on the Iron Range and most of them voted for Trump.

BTW Duluth is not on the Iron Range and is not in any danger of moving right. It is a college town with a lot hipsters and environmental activist types also living there. There are also blue collar types who work in the port but they remain pretty Democratic.

[Minnesota Mike]

I don't expect Minnesota to be competitive anytime soon. Why? Minneapolis.

When do you expect Minnesota to flip red??? This is based on how it nearly did in 2016 and has some of the right demographics outside its main metro area.

There are extreme circumstances that could cause Minnesota to flip to the Republicans, but it is not likely to occur anytime soon. The main reason is the fact that the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area is both becoming bluer and is growing faster than the rest of the state, and the non-Minneapolis parts of the state aren't red enough to keep it competitve.


Just look at the numbers:

At the time of the 2010 census, the parts of the Minneapolis metro area which were in Minnesota totalled 3.22 million people, making up 60.7% of Minnesota's population (which was 5.30 million).

And in 2019, the parts of the Minneapolis metro area in Minnesota were estimated to hold 3.51 million people, making up 65.3% of the state's population (at 5.64 million).

So this shows that the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area is growing as a percentage of Minnesota's population, very rapidly in fact.


To top it off, the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area is also becoming more Democratic (calculations below are only including counties in Minnesota and are using two-party vote share only):

• In 2012, Minneapolis's metro area voted for Obama 56.4% - 43.6% (margin of 12.8%).
• In 2016, Minneapolis's metro area voted for Clinton 57.6% - 42.4% (margin of 15.2%).
• In 2020, Minneapolis's metro area voted for Biden 60.6% - 39.4% (margin of 21.2%).

Both of these statistics show that increasing Republican margins in the non-Minneapolis areas of Minnesota won't be enough for a win because the metro area, as well as increasing its share of the population, is becoming more Democratic. This strikes in sharp contrast with the rust belt states Michigan and Ohio, where the Detroit and Cleveland metro areas are both shrinking and becoming more republican.


There are two factors Republicans must change to win Minnesota.

The first thing that must happen is that Republican margins in the non-Minneapolis parts of the state must increase. This strategy, combined with keeping Democrats from making large gains in Minnesota, led Donald Trump to perform well in Minnesota in 2016. Just take a look at the statistics below:

• In 2012, Minnesota exc. Minneapolis voted for Romney 50.2% - 49.8% (margin of 0.4%).
• In 2016, Minnesota exc. Minneapolis voted for Trump 60.4% - 39.6% (margin of 20.8%).
• In 2020, Minnesota exc. Minneapolis voted for Trump 58.3% - 41.7% (margin of 16.6%).

As you can see, Donald Trump was able to turn non-Minneapolis Minnesota towards himself in 2016, which made Minnesota unexpectedly close, and it is theoretically possible for a Republican candidate to improve on Trump's margins in non-Minneapolis Minnesota.

The issue is, though, that Republicans cannot rely on this strategy alone, as was exemplified in 2016. Even with Donald Trump's massive gains in the non-Minneapolis parts of Minnesota, he wasn't able to win because he couldn't decrease the Minneapolis metro's Democratic margins, which actually swung somewhat towards Clinton.


This brings us to our second factor which must change for a Republican victory in Minnesota, decreasing Democrat margins in the Minneapolis metro.

This is especially imperative because this part of the state is growing faster than the state as a whole and makes a majority of the state's population already. I find this quite unlikely, though, without a large realignment taking place.


What Republicans should be targeting is getting their percentage margins in non-Minneapolis Minnesota to be double the Democrats' percentage margins in the Minneapolis metro.

Agree with what you said but to nitpick Twin Cities metro is a more accurate description of the area you are talking about than Minneapolis. People in St Paul or the suburbs definitely do not describe themselves as living in Minneapolis.

[DS0816]

While many think Minnesota is out of reach for Republicans long-term, …

I don’t think that at all.

In 1984, when Ronald Reagan was re-elected with having carried 49 states, Minnesota was the holdout. So, Minnesota was the 1984 Republicans’s No. 50 best state.

In 2016 and 2020, with consecutive election cycles of switching the White House party, Minnesota was the Republicans’s No. 32 best state.

Since 1992, the average number of carried states by U.S. presidential-election winners has been 29. The range has been 25 (a 2020 Joe Biden) to 32 (a 1992 Bill Clinton) carried states. The last two winning Republicans carried at least 30 states.

To say that Minnesota isn’t feasible for Republicans is like saying Texas isn’t feasible for the Democrats. (It was the Nos. 29 and 28 best state for the 2016 and 2020 Democrats. The post-1980s winning Democrats have averaged 28 carried states.)

My sense of it is this: Next U.S. presidential election which delivers a Republican pickup will include Minnesota. Next U.S. presidential election which delivers a Democratic pickup will include Texas.

[Don't Tread on Me]

Like many conservatives, I assumed the GOP would take Minnesota during the 2020s, but I no longer think that it's as likely, at least in the short-term. While I think most of the state will vote for the GOP, including the historically Democratic northeastern area of the state, I think the growth of the Greater Minneapolis area will prevent it from flipping, short of a GOP landslide.

[Minnesota Mike]

My sense of it is this: Next U.S. presidential election which delivers a Republican pickup will include Minnesota. Next U.S. presidential election which delivers a Democratic pickup will include Texas.

Sort of agree. I would say the next time a Republican wins the national popular vote Minnesota could flip.

[seeking mystical annihilation]

Gains in MSP and Rochester are more than enough to offset losses elsewhere for the time being unless the sort of "snapback without Trump on the ballot" that only total hacks believe in happens. There could conceivably be a future where the Democrats totally collapse in the Iron Range and smaller metros like Moorhead and Mankato but Republican Twin Cities counties like Anoka and Carver keep moving to the left and provide enough raw votes to keep the state from tipping over; this would upset me for the sentimental reasons of losing the labor core of older Democratic coalitions, but it may be inevitable.

[Minnesota Mike]

A Republican are not winning Minnesota unless they can somehow stop/reverse the hard left swing of the outer suburbs. Some examples of the swing from 2012 to 2020.

2012/2020

Maple Grove: R+7.9/D+13.6
Eden Prairie: R +2.2/D+25.7
Woodbury: D+1.2/D+20.9
Apple Valley: D+4.8/D+21.9

All outer ring suburbs, high income and education levels. Also growing faster than the the state as a whole.

There are rural areas that swung just as hard the other way but they do not account for as many people.

[Frodo]

Republicans haven’t even been able to completely take over the Iron Range, the one part of the state I thought was ripe pickings and well within their reach.  If they can’t do that, what hope do they have at the statewide level?

There are simply not enough people on the Iron Range to make that big of difference.  The Iron Range is not all of NE Minnesota as some people seem to assume. Depending on how you define it there may be 100,000-200,000 people who live on the Iron Range and most of them voted for Trump.

BTW Duluth is not on the Iron Range and is not in any danger of moving right. It is a college town with a lot hipsters and environmental activist types also living there. There are also blue collar types who work in the port but they remain pretty Democratic.

I think what I was trying to say was that if Republicans still cannot consolidate their hold in a region of the state that's trending their way (there are DFL legislators who continue to represent Trump-voting districts), I can't see how they could possibly take the governor's mansion, and other offices at the statewide level which would be even more challenging.  

[CentristRepublican]

Minnesota is to Republicans what Texas may be to Democrats.

It can be described as fools gold.

TX is trending leftward. Yes, assuming it would go blue in 2020 was a stretch, but in the long-term (as in 2024 or 2028, definitely by 2032), I could see it becoming very competitive and potentially going blue.

[THG]

Minnesota is to Republicans what Texas may be to Democrats.

It can be described as fools gold.

TX is trending leftward. Yes, assuming it would go blue in 2020 was a stretch, but in the long-term (as in 2024 or 2028, definitely by 2032), I could see it becoming very competitive and potentially going blue.

Minnesota also swung heavily Republican in 2016 before swinging back blue and stabilizing. Similar to what I expect to happen in Texas.

I do think Texas will be competitive in the mid to late 2030's, but not anytime this decade.