Will the Twin Cities make Minnesota a reliably D state at the federal level?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Minnesota has always been a beacon of liberalism in America. Despite close calls over the years, it has the longest streak of voting D for President, even voting for Mondale in his 1984 landslide default.

However, despite this impressive D streak, Minnesota has never been a truly safe D state, electing Republican governors, and constant flipping legislative control.

While Democrats collapse in rural Minnesota gave Dems a scare in 2016, Biden's relatively strong performance in the state thanks to the twin cities offered some relief. The twin cities are highly educated and have been the fastest growing part of the state compared to many of the rural areas which despite getting redder are stagnant or outright shrinking.

If the Twin Cities continue to grow, could Minnesota's politics become controlled by the metro, similar to how Illinois is controlled by Chicago, in turn making the state Safe D? Dems def still have a lot of room to fall in rural areas, but Minnesota's rural have less and less of a dominance on the state due to population shifts.

I feel like it'd be quite interesting in particular if over the next decade, neighboring WI shifts hard right despite being similar to Minnesota in many ways. If it falls into the category of "blue wall" it'd make the GOPs job of winning the electoral college harder going forwards.

[Schiff for Senate]

1 but I'd argue it's already at Likely D levels.

[Skill and Chance]

The population is urban enough that it's plausible.  If you had to pick a non-IL Midwest state that's still winnable for Dems in 2040, it would easily be MN.  However, they are permanently screwed in the state legislature when the rural seats give out.

[ProgressiveModerate]

The population is urban enough that it's plausible.  If you had to pick a non-IL Midwest state that's still winnable for Dems in 2040, it would easily be MN.  However, they are permanently screwed in the state legislature when the rural seats give out.

I’d disagree with the state legislature; good chance a majority of the population lives in the “blue bubble” not far in the future. Duluth and Rochester should also offer an extra House seat or two. They def have a geography disadvantage though

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The population is urban enough that it's plausible.  If you had to pick a non-IL Midwest state that's still winnable for Dems in 2040, it would easily be MN.  However, they are permanently screwed in the state legislature when the rural seats give out.

There really aren't any rural seats left in DFL hands aside from a few Iron Range ones. And actually since those areas are losing population while the metro is entirely gaining, the state legislature is more likely to lock out the Republicans than vice-versa.

[SevenEleven]

Minnesota is reliably D, why is that not an option?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Minnesota is reliably D, why is that not an option?

[RINO Tom]

I don't know that much about Minnesota, but the obvious answer is that it depends on the suburbs.  The actual "Twin Cities" themselves have been reliably Democratic for a long time, but the suburban areas were shockingly Republican for Minnesota's "liberal reputation" that you alluded to until relatively recently.  Even in 2020, Trump won a lot of suburban areas (thought by a lot less than Romney, of course).  Despite what this forum says, I have never found people from Minnesota to be more inherently liberal than people from similar areas in Wisconsin or any other Midwest state.  So, if the suburbs continue to drift left faster than the rural areas, obviously the GOP can never catch up.  However, if the 2024 GOP nominee had a rebound in the suburbs nationally, Minneapolis would come along, IMO ... it's not as "special" as people suggest it as when doing this type of analysis.  Now, I am not sure that such a GOP rebound would be enough to carry the state, but I certainly wouldn't call it "reliably D" in an environment that favors the GOP heavily (which is very possible if Biden remains this unpopular and tries to run again).

[Minnesota Mike]

Minnesota is reliably D, why is that not an option?

Depends how we define reliably D. At the Federal level (which is the question) it no Republican has won statewide since 2002. At the Federal level no Republican has gotten 50%+ since 1988. That seems pretty reliably Democratic to me. On the other hand there have been several extremely close races so I wouldn't call it safe Democratic.

If Republicans are to win they need to substantially cut the margins in the suburbs, there just are not enough rural votes otherwise.

[SInNYC]

I don't know that much about Minnesota, but the obvious answer is that it depends on the suburbs.  The actual "Twin Cities" themselves have been reliably Democratic for a long time, but the suburban areas were shockingly Republican for Minnesota's "liberal reputation" that you alluded to until relatively recently.  Even in 2020, Trump won a lot of suburban areas (thought by a lot less than Romney, of course).  Despite what this forum says, I have never found people from Minnesota to be more inherently liberal than people from similar areas in Wisconsin or any other Midwest state.  So, if the suburbs continue to drift left faster than the rural areas, obviously the GOP can never catch up.  However, if the 2024 GOP nominee had a rebound in the suburbs nationally, Minneapolis would come along, IMO ... it's not as "special" as people suggest it as when doing this type of analysis.  Now, I am not sure that such a GOP rebound would be enough to carry the state, but I certainly wouldn't call it "reliably D" in an environment that favors the GOP heavily (which is very possible if Biden remains this unpopular and tries to run again).

This.
There are plenty of people in the Twin Cities suburbs  who are scared to enter the city even before the protests last summer. Enough of them currently vote DFL, but I can see them voting R if they arent seen as the stupid party.

I do think MN is one of the most liberal states (many other blue states are blue because of demographics, not liberalism), but this is partly because MN also has the Iron Range and Rochester, but the Iron Range is declining and Rochester is kind of like the suburbs voting-wise. The DFL also needs to come to agreement about how to unify environmentalists and union workers, instead of ignoring rural areas like the national party does.

[RINO Tom]

I don't know that much about Minnesota, but the obvious answer is that it depends on the suburbs.  The actual "Twin Cities" themselves have been reliably Democratic for a long time, but the suburban areas were shockingly Republican for Minnesota's "liberal reputation" that you alluded to until relatively recently.  Even in 2020, Trump won a lot of suburban areas (thought by a lot less than Romney, of course).  Despite what this forum says, I have never found people from Minnesota to be more inherently liberal than people from similar areas in Wisconsin or any other Midwest state.  So, if the suburbs continue to drift left faster than the rural areas, obviously the GOP can never catch up.  However, if the 2024 GOP nominee had a rebound in the suburbs nationally, Minneapolis would come along, IMO ... it's not as "special" as people suggest it as when doing this type of analysis.  Now, I am not sure that such a GOP rebound would be enough to carry the state, but I certainly wouldn't call it "reliably D" in an environment that favors the GOP heavily (which is very possible if Biden remains this unpopular and tries to run again).

This.
There are plenty of people in the Twin Cities suburbs  who are scared to enter the city even before the protests last summer. Enough of them currently vote DFL, but I can see them voting R if they arent seen as the stupid party.

I do think MN is one of the most liberal states (many other blue states are blue because of demographics, not liberalism), but this is partly because MN also has the Iron Range and Rochester, but the Iron Range is declining and Rochester is kind of like the suburbs voting-wise. The DFL also needs to come to agreement about how to unify environmentalists and union workers, instead of ignoring rural areas like the national party does.

I know this is commonly thrown out there, so not coming at you, but how is “because of demographics” not “because of liberalism”?  A religious and socially moderate Black person who is a loyal Democrat and who supports redistributionist economic policies is AT LEAST as “liberal” as a White NOVA voter who thinks the GOP is too religious or “racist” but doesn’t want taxes to be raised on the top bracket.

[SInNYC]

I don't know that much about Minnesota, but the obvious answer is that it depends on the suburbs.  The actual "Twin Cities" themselves have been reliably Democratic for a long time, but the suburban areas were shockingly Republican for Minnesota's "liberal reputation" that you alluded to until relatively recently.  Even in 2020, Trump won a lot of suburban areas (thought by a lot less than Romney, of course).  Despite what this forum says, I have never found people from Minnesota to be more inherently liberal than people from similar areas in Wisconsin or any other Midwest state.  So, if the suburbs continue to drift left faster than the rural areas, obviously the GOP can never catch up.  However, if the 2024 GOP nominee had a rebound in the suburbs nationally, Minneapolis would come along, IMO ... it's not as "special" as people suggest it as when doing this type of analysis.  Now, I am not sure that such a GOP rebound would be enough to carry the state, but I certainly wouldn't call it "reliably D" in an environment that favors the GOP heavily (which is very possible if Biden remains this unpopular and tries to run again).

This.
There are plenty of people in the Twin Cities suburbs  who are scared to enter the city even before the protests last summer. Enough of them currently vote DFL, but I can see them voting R if they arent seen as the stupid party.

I do think MN is one of the most liberal states (many other blue states are blue because of demographics, not liberalism), but this is partly because MN also has the Iron Range and Rochester, but the Iron Range is declining and Rochester is kind of like the suburbs voting-wise. The DFL also needs to come to agreement about how to unify environmentalists and union workers, instead of ignoring rural areas like the national party does.

I know this is commonly thrown out there, so not coming at you, but how is “because of demographics” not “because of liberalism”?  A religious and socially moderate Black person who is a loyal Democrat and who supports redistributionist economic policies is AT LEAST as “liberal” as a White NOVA voter who thinks the GOP is too religious or “racist” but doesn’t want taxes to be raised on the top bracket.

I can understand why you say this, since it has shades of McConnell's recent statements. However, I and I think most who say this dont see southern blacks ideologically on the left (I also dont count NOVA whites as being on the left). While I would consider Warnock on the left (though a relatively unrepresented 'religious left'), there are plenty of southern blacks who aren't particularly left on many issues and would join Rs in yelling communist at the sight of anything redistributionist - Stacey Abrams is probably in the center-right of the party. A rural upper midwest liberal would love Bernie, but a southern black would not. They may be even more loyal Democrats, but that doesnt make them liberals, and I think more would vote R if Rs werent the way they are.

I do agree 101% with one implied aspect of your post - the national media (including NYT) often deems a socially liberal economically non-redistributive person to be the left while the converse is a centrist. I violently disagree with that.