Talk Elections

Hi, I was wondering if any of you had any opinions on who is likely to win Minnesota in 2004? Minnesota has traditionally been very heabily Democratic, but Bush came close to Gore there in 2000, and in 2002 the Republicans won big victories carrying both the Gubernatiorial and Senatorial races. Any thoughts on whether this State might go Republican in 2004? Also, does anyone know if Minnesota is similar to the Great Lakes States economically(rust belt, favorable circumstances to Gephardt)?

i just have a feeling that minnasota will go (R) in 04

welcome TomatPitt to the forums

The way it is now, Bush has a 54% chance of winning Minnesota.

You're right that Minnesota has been gradually trending to the right.  The trends most noticeable are the  following:  Older voters are the most heavily Democratic (Humphrey and Mondale people) and are reaching the end of their lives; the Iron Range in Northeast MN is heavily Democrat but casts a much smaller percentage of the statewide vote than 20 years ago; the Minneapolis suburbs are spreading out far from the city center and are heavily Republican; and rural areas, once fairly receptive to Democrats, are becoming more conservative.
The other factor is that the state's Democrat party (called Democrat Farmer Labor) is pretty much controlled by urban liberals and are increasingly out of step with the rest of the state.  IMO Bush has a very good chance of carrying the state in 2004.  He needs to blunt the Democrat trend in the older suburbs though. (As a side note, a poll 3 weeks before the 2000 election showed Bush with a 1 pt. lead.  This forced Gore to spend funds here to hold the state, which cost him resources elsewhere)

So is Minessota not really much of a "rust-belt" Great-Lakes state with a heavy labor presence that Gephardt could take advantage of?

no. those states are illinois, ohio, my homestate michigan is heavy labor.  My dad is a long time member of the teamsters.

The GOP ain't gonna win Minnesota. That's pretty much a foregone conclusion.

are you sure

So is Minessota not really much of a "rust-belt" Great-Lakes state with a heavy labor presence that Gephardt could take advantage of?
Not really.  There's not a lot of heavy industry outside of the Duluth/Iron Range area unless you count Northwest Airlines.  But there are a lot of service-sector unions.  The biggest 3 employers in MN are the State Gov't, the Federal Gov't, and state college and universities system.  Almost all of these voters are very politically active and vote Democrat.

i,d love minnasota to go dem. but i think it will go republican

If we're in this much danger of the GOP winning Minnesota, then America might as well just call it quits.

Minnesota is one of the true battlegrounds in 2004.  I think that the race is 50-50 there now, I not ready to commit to either side.

Gore won MN in 2000, but Bush spent no time or money there.  And up uintil the last week it was a tossup, and it turned out really close.

The suburban Twin City voters are heavily or the GOP.    These same voters are the ones that started to switch in 1998 in electing Jesse Ventura.  Then in 2002 elected A no tax increases governor in a 3 way race.  So far Gov Pawlenty has been cutting spending and has not raised taxes.  True to his word.

Next also in 2002 the GOP made significant gains in the State senate and are only down a few votes.  Next the GOP strengthened its hold on State House and also won the Senate contest with Norm Coleman.  

A big boost was given to the GOP because of the "Wellstone Rally" that is for sure, but Coleman was running even with Wellstone before the crash.  In years past Wellstone would have been miles ahead ina the more Democrat MN.  The GOP has a huge voter registration drive on in MN and is using a lot of resources locally to strengthen itself and make it competitive.

I would say 2004 would be the best shot the GOP has had in years of winning MN.  The GOP beat Mondale in 2002 and could beata  Mondale like candidate in Dean in 2004.

I'd also say 50 - 50.

Based on Presidential voting trends over the past 4 elections, MN has been consistently trending more Republican (unlike most states). As the table shows below, the Democratic Presidential vote in MN has been dropping.
Election %above national Average
1988 15%
1992 6%
1996 8%
2000 2%
 
In addition, the analysis by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press of the change in party registration between 1997-2000 to Oct 2003, shows a 8% net gain for Republican registration in MN, 6th largest change in the country.
Together these trends would suggest a modest Bush win of perhaps 1-3%, (assuming a close national election).

"There are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics."
-Disreali-

Couple of things your all forgeting:

1. The Independence Party polled 16% in the gubernatorial election. Minnesota is not a two party state at gubernatorial level(This is not new. The Farmer-Labor Party in the 1930's were a very strong 3rd party and Minnesota does have a taste for outsiders)

2. Nader polled 5% in Minnesota in 2000.

3. The DFL still won more votes than the IRP in the 2002 House election(although it was very close and the seats are spilt 4-4 it still has to be mentioned)

4. If the Dems manage to lose Minnesota it'll be as stupid as when they somehow lost Arkansas and WV in 2000

5. The GOP have a much better shot at Wisconsin and/or Iowa.

Nah, the GOP won't win Minnesota, surely not the ONLY state that voted Dem in 1984?! (Even if most of that was Mondale). The Scandanavian/Lutheran population there are heavily Democratic aren't they? I hope Minnesota stays Democratic, if not Bush is in for a landslide and landslides are not good for democracy.

I share your distaste for landslides and the extremist candidates who cause them :P

I'm not sure that Minnesota is a luxury so to speak for Bush. If (by any chance howsoever small) the democratic nominee looks like picking up the most competitive southern states, Ark, Tenn. Fl. etc Bush has to make up the numbers primarily in the midwest and Minnesota is the first such state he has to win. The proGOP trends have been strongest here.

I agree that will happen and the reasons have already been decently coved by the others here.

Mondale only won Minn buy four thousand or so votes.

Bush & Dean Campaing There A lot But the Out Come is Bush will win Minnesota 50 to 46

   The 3rd party canidate for Gov last year was former Rep. Tim Penny, a conservative Democrat who was pro gun and pro life and anti tax. The MN state house has now close to a 2-1 GOP majority, and the Democrats have only a narrow edge in the state senate, and on some issues, the conservatives have a working majority there because of rural DFLers.

  As for the overall house vote, one has to keep in mind Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat who is also pro gun, pro life and anti tax, a overall record that is quite conservative, won re election by a 3-1 margin because the GOP did not bother to put up a viable canidate, nor do they really have any reason do to so.

minnesota


    R-51% D-49%

those are my predictions

I think the Republicans have a very good chance at winning MN next year.  But I think they have an even better chance at winning Iowa, Wisconsin, and Oregon.

The GOP has a better chance at picking up states they lost in 2000 than the Democrats have at picking up states they lost.  The booming economy as well as the strong points Republicans receive for national security (the only two issues that will matter next year), things are looking good for Bush's reelection.

What booming economy?

I agree with Bandit, and also I'd say that national security is far from being a certain winner for the GOP. With the rate of deaths in Iraq increasing in pace, I wouldn't count it as a definite plus just yet.

Well the economy is coming.  I heard reports that the GDP will again be around 6% for the 4Q and that manuf jobs were added in Nov and those numbers come out Friday.  Not booming yet, but picking up steam and will be looking great by next summer.

As for Iraq word already is that troop levels will be reduced next year and more control will be given to the Iraqi's as they pass a constitution and establish a government.

I think that Minnesota will go for Bush, 52% to 47%. After a close 2000 Presidential election, and the recent election of their new Republican Governor and Republican Senator, I think we are seeing a preview of the 2004 election.

Well, we'll see about Iraq. Maybe a stable democratic government will be formed by then, but at this point I'll believe it when I see it.
Yes, the economy is starting to improve after having been down for 2.5 years. It remains to be seen where it will be next year, but it will most likely still be worse than it was before Bush took office.
Also, the budget deficit will probably be higher than it was when Bush took office.

Bush may as well forget Illinois.

Well, that’s a different topic for a different thread. But it amazes me how so many people think Illinois is solidly Democratic as of late. Illinois has voted for the winning Presidential candidate every single time in the 20th century except for 1916 and 1976. Accordingly, Illinois voted for Clinton in 1992, 1996, and then voted for Gore (who won the popular vote, but not the election) in 2000. And even the 2000 election was relatively close at 54%. Illinois has given you the allusion it is  Democratic, simply because the Democrats have won the Presidency the past decade. Except for Bush’s election in 2000.

The northern half of the state is Democratic, and the southern half is Republican. Since nearly half of Illinois's population lies in the north and the other half in the south, the state is fairly evenly divided amongst Democrats and Republicans. You just need a few people from the north or south to vote for the other party in order to decide elections (including the swing voters of course.) This is what makes Illinois a swing state.

As far as the 2002 elections, Illinois voted for Senator Durbin by 66% (no big surprise) and also voted for the current Governor Rod Blagojevich (bla-GOYA-vich) with 52% of the vote (still pretty close). The Illinois General Assembly also went Democratic. Why did the Democrats win so big at the state level? Former Governor George Ryan is the answer. Nothing but corruption plagued his term of office, and the people of Illinois were ready for a change after having Republican governors for 28 years. Blagojecvich promised the voters he would end the corruption and "clean house". Voters of Illinois figured that it would be best to begin anew with new leadership. Thus, the Democrats had a big win at the state level in 2002. Again, Durbin won re-election, that isn't saying much though.

Also note that 10 of the 19 U.S. Representatives from Illinois are Republican. Therefore, there is a small glimmer of hope for the Republicans in Illinois. Many people have stated in other threads that it is the House of Representatives that determines which way the country is going, either Republican or Democrat, and since the House is in Republican control, that would lead you to the assumption that the majority of the country are Republicans. Then I suppose this logic can be applied to the state of Illinois. Since there are 10 Republicans to 9 Democrats, accordingly, Illinois’s  political beliefs lie in the Republican arena.

The Democratic Nominee won't "easily" win Illinois, and neither will Bush. Illinois is a swing state and always will be for quite some time. No amount of state level corruption could stop this.

And furthermore, no candidate should ignore the Midwest states, since it is truly the Midwest that decides elections. I think this is the reason why most states go one way or the other. People say "Hey, those states aren't going to vote for us, so f**k em!" Thus, the state votes for the other party, and in essence f**ks the candidate.

But yes, it wouldn't surprise me if Illinois voted Democratic in 2004. Since current Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R) is stepping down, and with no good Republican contenders, and some good Democratic contenders, (including well known State Comptroller Dan Hynes) I would assume that the next U.S. Senator from Illinois will be a Democrat. The majority of the 19 Congressional districts will undoutedly stay in Republican control. But as far as the Presidential election, you can pretty much flip a coin. Although Bush's chances don't look too good. If Bush wins Illinois it will be 52% for Bush 47% for the Democrat. If the Democrat wins it'll be 55% for the Democrat, 44% for Bush.

Sorry for going on about this. Since this is a thread discussing Minnesota in 2004, I shouldn’t have gone on about Illinois. I predict in the near future, there will be threads for all the swing Midwest states, WI, IA, MO, IL, MI, IN (oops not Indiana ;) )

I think the Democrats actually have a shot at winning Indiana.

Indiana hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1964. Indiana even voted for President George Bush in 1992 when things weren't so good. I don't think things will be as bad as they were back in '92 by November 2004, therefore, what reason would Indiana have for voting Democratic?

I don't see Indiana voting Democratic.

Nobody in their foggiest dreams thought Reagan would carry Rhode Island and Hawaii in 1984, but he did. So far, Bush's utter unpopularity has been severely underestimated by the media and others.

If I didn't know any better about how ingrained Republican vote fraud is, then I wouldn't even count Texas as safe for him.

Good post.  What about Jack Ryan ( =man I wish he ha a different last name) for Senate.  Heard he is a leading candidates looks good and got plenty of money for GOP side in senate race.

Might want to check out a neat site all about IL Senate race--

http://www.ilsenate.com/


Well, that’s a different topic for a different thread. But it amazes me how so many people think Illinois is solidly Democratic as of late. Illinois has voted for the winning Presidential candidate every single time in the 20th century except for 1916 and 1976. Accordingly, Illinois voted for Clinton in 1992, 1996, and then voted for Gore (who won the popular vote, but not the election) in 2000. And even the 2000 election was relatively close at 54%. Illinois has given you the allusion it is  Democratic, simply because the Democrats have won the Presidency the past decade. Except for Bush’s election in 2000.

The northern half of the state is Democratic, and the southern half is Republican. Since nearly half of Illinois's population lies in the north and the other half in the south, the state is fairly evenly divided amongst Democrats and Republicans. You just need a few people from the north or south to vote for the other party in order to decide elections (including the swing voters of course.) This is what makes Illinois a swing state.

As far as the 2002 elections, Illinois voted for Senator Durbin by 66% (no big surprise) and also voted for the current Governor Rod Blagojevich (bla-GOYA-vich) with 52% of the vote (still pretty close). The Illinois General Assembly also went Democratic. Why did the Democrats win so big at the state level? Former Governor George Ryan is the answer. Nothing but corruption plagued his term of office, and the people of Illinois were ready for a change after having Republican governors for 28 years. Blagojecvich promised the voters he would end the corruption and "clean house". Voters of Illinois figured that it would be best to begin anew with new leadership. Thus, the Democrats had a big win at the state level in 2002. Again, Durbin won re-election, that isn't saying much though.

Also note that 10 of the 19 U.S. Representatives from Illinois are Republican. Therefore, there is a small glimmer of hope for the Republicans in Illinois. Many people have stated in other threads that it is the House of Representatives that determines which way the country is going, either Republican or Democrat, and since the House is in Republican control, that would lead you to the assumption that the majority of the country are Republicans. Then I suppose this logic can be applied to the state of Illinois. Since there are 10 Republicans to 9 Democrats, accordingly, Illinois’s  political beliefs lie in the Republican arena.

The Democratic Nominee won't "easily" win Illinois, and neither will Bush. Illinois is a swing state and always will be for quite some time. No amount of state level corruption could stop this.

And furthermore, no candidate should ignore the Midwest states, since it is truly the Midwest that decides elections. I think this is the reason why most states go one way or the other. People say "Hey, those states aren't going to vote for us, so f**k em!" Thus, the state votes for the other party, and in essence f**ks the candidate.

But yes, it wouldn't surprise me if Illinois voted Democratic in 2004. Since current Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R) is stepping down, and with no good Republican contenders, and some good Democratic contenders, (including well known State Comptroller Dan Hynes) I would assume that the next U.S. Senator from Illinois will be a Democrat. The majority of the 19 Congressional districts will undoutedly stay in Republican control. But as far as the Presidential election, you can pretty much flip a coin. Although Bush's chances don't look too good. If Bush wins Illinois it will be 52% for Bush 47% for the Democrat. If the Democrat wins it'll be 55% for the Democrat, 44% for Bush.

Sorry for going on about this. Since this is a thread discussing Minnesota in 2004, I shouldn’t have gone on about Illinois. I predict in the near future, there will be threads for all the swing Midwest states, WI, IA, MO, IL, MI, IN (oops not Indiana ;) )

You may indeed be right.

Jack Ryan
Andy McKenna
Jim Oberweis

Those Republican candidates, pretty much in order, have a good chance of winning the nomination, and possibly the Senate election in Illinois. A person who had a DAMN good chance to win the nomination and even a better chance of winning the election, refused to run.
Former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R) (1991-1999) who is extremely popular throughout the state and won the support of both Republicans and Democrats. He would be an excellent candidate, but he said he wants to spend more time with his family....pffffph...idiot.

Yeah! And what's with all these RYANS?! George Ryan, Jim Ryan (who ran for governor in 2002) Jack Ryan. And NONE of them are related to each other!!
There are just a BUNCH of RYANS running around all over the place!!! It's enough to make a person SICK!!

No offense to Ryan, one of the Senior Members of the Forum. ;)

True, Illinois is competitive, but it has been more Democratic than the nation as a whole in every presidential election since 1980. In the 1990's, it began to swing even more Democratic. Combine that with the near Democratic lock on statewide elected offices as well and it's easy to see why Illinois would not be described as a swing state anymore. Clearly the Dems are the dominant party in Illinois.

No they don't.

Wow that's all I have to say.

Nader won 5% in 2000. Where will they go?

Nader still might enter the race. I fear that would only help Bush' Re-Election bid. Nader helped the Republicans in 2000.

To Nader Because he is problely going to run again.

I hope not!

From politics1.com:


Still, I don't think Nader will do as well in 2004. Three years ago he attracted a big protest vote from Democrats who felt alienated by Gore; this time around stopping Bush will be more important to them, and they'll get behind whoever the Democratic candidate is. At least that's how I see it.

ROTFWL :D none taken :D
Goddamn Gov. George goddamn R***...........brought disrepute to a perfectly distinguished and respectable name :P :P

I think Nader will do better when Dean tries to move to the middle after the primaries.

People Has a Desion to Make in Minnestoa & The Rest of the States that have a Right to Vote in Election 2004 & See if their Party won or Not
Here is My Preaction
it will be Cose
Bush: 50%
Dean: 47%

good point darth

You're underestimating Bush's unpopularity in some quarters; the kind of people who would usually vote for a Green Party candidate (we're talking ultra-liberals, environmentalists, etc) absolutely despise him, and would vote for whoever they think is most likely to defeat Bush. I doubt they'll really care where the Dem. candidate stands, even assuming Dean suddenly moves to the middle. They just want Bush out of the White House.

I don't think the anti-Bush vote will win Dean the election, but I do believe it will nullify the threat posed by Nader.

WHY is everybody asumming that dean is the nominee!!! He has a 60% chance but he is not locked in.

I ASSUME why everyone is assuming dean is the nominee is b/c he is ahead.

Next, Braun, Sharpton ( maybe SC) and Kucinich ( maybe OH) are non factors.

Lieberman is too conservative for the Dem nom.

Kerry is TOAST!!! after NH and running a miserable campaign.

Edwards is the "who is that guy?" candidate yet.

Clark has no domestic policy, flipped ont eh war which p*ssed off the liberal base and is running barely ahea dof where he was before he declared in NH.

Gep--only one who i see as having a shot for nom is non exist in NH and SC, must win IA and prove himself.  Poll out today said Dean lead 26-22.  And sucha  career politician.

Democrats should stop and think about dean beating bush.

If Dean tries to move to the middle he would be seen as to conservative for them.

I disagree. The Left-Wing movement wants the USA to withdraw from Iraq, and none of the mainstream Dems support that. That rift is going to prevent to many Far-Left votes from going to the Dems.

You got it right.

That is Right it will close thats my Preadiction

Bush will have a Good Chace of Getting Minnesota in 04 to win the White House or he Lose but i don't think so he will win
Bush: 53%
Dean: 48%

Dean isn't the f**king nominee yet. Until he is, stop saying it. If Dean is DEFEATED, I will come back and LAUGH at each person, who said, "Who will win, Dean or Bush, Dean Dean Dean, Deany Deany Dean Dean.

I take it that you are not supporting dean.
Neather am I. I like gephardt

lol. Yeah, I like Gephardt better as well.  Not to imply that I HATE Dean. But still, I don't go around saying, "Who do you think will win, Bush or Gephardt?". Because I know Gephardt is not yet the nominee, and I would never be so cock sure to say he will be.

Like some members on this forum are so sure Dean will be nominated. Or, that Bush WILL win.

i totaly agee

This is a hilarious thread.

Mostly because of Bandit's comment that the Democrats have a shot at Indiana.

And John, of course.

I think this is the best part:


53 + 48 = ...

Although actually possible, if it's 52.5% to 47.5%...

Of course, this was John.  :P

Well, and this post, Alcon.

And the whole nonsense about Minnesota trending Republican that we don't hear anymore thankfully.

I love hte comments about the Republicans doing so well in the state elections.  Now the DFL controls the state house and senate by near 2 to 1 majorities, we have 5 DFLers in our delegation and the DFL senate candidate won in the biggest senate landslide since WWII.

Minnesota tried the Republicans, and now the state is going down the poop chute... expect the DFL to do well in 2008 as well.