Areas trending REP

[BannedAndBitten]

Hopefully none.

[5280]

Minnesota sure as hell isn't going to be a DEM stronghold forever, things change and that will probably we one of the first regions along with Wisconsin.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Minnesota sure as hell isn't going to be a DEM stronghold forever, things change and that will probably we one of the first regions along with Wisconsin.

WI trended dem in 2004 and 2008.

[Linus Van Pelt]

The thing that may fool people about MN is that it was (relative to the national average) kind of artificially Democratic in the 80's because of (a) Walter Mondale and (b) its relative lack of urban ghetto/crime/white flight-type problems which were highly salient in that decade. So certainly in a broad sense it has trended Republican since then. But since then it's been pretty consistently around a couple of points more Democratic that the national average in all elections, give or take a point or two.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The thing that may fool people about MN is that it was (relative to the national average) kind of artificially Democratic in the 80's because of (a) Walter Mondale and (b) its relative lack of urban ghetto/crime/white flight-type problems which were highly salient in that decade. So certainly in a broad sense it has trended Republican since then. But since then it's been pretty consistently around a couple of points more Democratic that the national average in all elections, give or take a point or two.

b is a good point I've actually never thought of before.

[Linus Van Pelt]

The thing that may fool people about MN is that it was (relative to the national average) kind of artificially Democratic in the 80's because of (a) Walter Mondale and (b) its relative lack of urban ghetto/crime/white flight-type problems which were highly salient in that decade. So certainly in a broad sense it has trended Republican since then. But since then it's been pretty consistently around a couple of points more Democratic that the national average in all elections, give or take a point or two.

b is a good point I've actually never thought of before.

I think this is one of the most important factors behind voting patterns in the 80's. Compared to now, for instance, Dukakis's vote looks quite weird: how do you lose IL, MI, MD, and southeast PA while winning WV, southwest PA, the upper midwest and the Pacific northwest? Well, compare: Chicago, Detroit, DC, Baltimore & Philly are all majority-minority and had major problems with inner city riots and depopulation. Whereas Pittsburgh, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Portland and Seattle are all majority white, plus in resource extraction areas (Appalachian coal, the MN Iron Range and the northwestern timber areas) the nature of the industry forces an unusual pattern of union Democrats in small white towns. So people won't be so afraid of Willie Horton etc.

[TeePee4Prez]

The thing that may fool people about MN is that it was (relative to the national average) kind of artificially Democratic in the 80's because of (a) Walter Mondale and (b) its relative lack of urban ghetto/crime/white flight-type problems which were highly salient in that decade. So certainly in a broad sense it has trended Republican since then. But since then it's been pretty consistently around a couple of points more Democratic that the national average in all elections, give or take a point or two.

b is a good point I've actually never thought of before.

I think this is one of the most important factors behind voting patterns in the 80's. Compared to now, for instance, Dukakis's vote looks quite weird: how do you lose IL, MI, MD, and southeast PA while winning WV, southwest PA, the upper midwest and the Pacific northwest? Well, compare: Chicago, Detroit, DC, Baltimore & Philly are all majority-minority and had major problems with inner city riots and depopulation. Whereas Pittsburgh, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Portland and Seattle are all majority white, plus in resource extraction areas (Appalachian coal, the MN Iron Range and the northwestern timber areas) the nature of the industry forces an unusual pattern of union Democrats in small white towns. So people won't be so afraid of Willie Horton etc.

Never thought of it this way, but you're dead on.  With the larger cities, there's also the issue of economics/tax cuts over social issues in the 1980s which was definitely true then.  You also have some of the 'resource extraction' areas going through a near Great Depression at the time with local unemployment as high as 30% in parts of Western PA.  Those people shall I say did not have the luxury or really had to worry about crime/race/Section 8 housing issues.  It really wasn't until 1992 after the Bob Casey/Bill Clinton debacle that the suburbs started rapidly trending DEM.  Ironically, Bob Casey Sr.'s strong anti-choice stance actually helped the Democrats do better in PA and got them more fundraising.  They could now well afford to abandon SW PA and focus on places like SE PA, NJ, suburban NYC, and CT which would be a greater boon financially.  Thing is the Dems always have and still will need labor support.  Sometimes that can be a tough triangulation especially when there are many union people with socially conservative (and sometimes racist) views.  There were some Wards in Philadelphia that either narrowly went for/against Obama that I know could have been much worse had the union not directed their members.

[Badger]

FWIW: This same phenomenon is part of the same reason the Democrats are growing in metro Columbus. Having a (perceived) moderate business sympathetic black mayor like Mike Coleman, who's actually popular among white voters, helps avoid the black city/white suburb antagonism seen in other metro areas like Cleveland and Cinci.

[TeePee4Prez]

FWIW: This same phenomenon is part of the same reason the Democrats are growing in metro Columbus. Having a (perceived) moderate business sympathetic black mayor like Mike Coleman, who's actually popular among white voters, helps avoid the black city/white suburb antagonism seen in other metro areas like Cleveland and Cinci.

I kinda thought Mike Nutter would do the same in Philly.  He actually had to raise taxes so....  Think it ends that.  I didn't think Cleveland was that bad with that.  I've heard of Cinci hardly having ANY white Democrats and some racial strife there.  I don't know Ohio too well though.

[Stranger Than Fiction]

FWIW: This same phenomenon is part of the same reason the Democrats are growing in metro Columbus. Having a (perceived) moderate business sympathetic black mayor like Mike Coleman, who's actually popular among white voters, helps avoid the black city/white suburb antagonism seen in other metro areas like Cleveland and Cinci.

I'm a fan of Coleman and thinks he has done a great job as mayor.  I recall when I was living there  back in 1998 that there's a certain racial element in the campaigns between Coleman and his white Republican opponent. Columbus is one of the few large cities that are actually growing, and a lot of this growth owes itself to the endless sprawl of suburban and exurban communities built on annexed areas.  The remarkable Democrat swing in Franklin County (20% from 2000 to 2008) is more a result of increasing diversity, greater education, existence of institutions like Ohio State Univ, Ohio State Government and growth of professional backoffice finance and IT jobs.

[12th Doctor]

Inconsequential.  In a decades time, a completely different set of states will be "trending" one way or the other.  When a candidate does worse in a set of states just because that party has maxed out its support in a given location, we call it a "trend" and set it up as an indication of future electoral success.

[timmer123]

Minnesota isnt trending Republican you fools. It's just that they have a Republican Governor and a crazy representative (Bachmann). They have 2 liberal Democratic senators.

If anything, it's a swing state with a 3-5% lean to the Dem.

Interesting that only conservative representatives are "crazy" or "nuts."

Guess you're just scared of an unapologetic, conservative woman.

[ajc0918]

Minnesota isnt trending Republican you fools. It's just that they have a Republican Governor and a crazy representative (Bachmann). They have 2 liberal Democratic senators.

If anything, it's a swing state with a 3-5% lean to the Dem.

Interesting that only conservative representatives are "crazy" or "nuts."

Guess you're just scared of an all unapologetic, conservative women.

[Rob]

Guess you're just scared of an unapologetic, conservative woman.

It's a little-known fact, but Bachmann actually has a penis.

[useful idiot]

Minnesota isnt trending Republican you fools. It's just that they have a Republican Governor and a crazy representative (Bachmann). They have 2 liberal Democratic senators.

If anything, it's a swing state with a 3-5% lean to the Dem.

Interesting that only conservative representatives are "crazy" or "nuts."

Guess you're just scared of an unapologetic, conservative woman.

Goldwater wasn't nuts, Reagan wasn't nuts(well, he kept the crazies inside), and William F. Buckley wasn't nuts. They were all very conservative.

But honestly, what the hell would Bill Buckley say about the Bachmanns and Palins taking over the Republican Party? Do you think he would approve? These people are either DUMB or CRAZY. The base can't even stand intelligent conservatism, no matter how conservative it is, because it's not simple or coming from the mouth of someone who speaks in tongues.

Peggy Noonan is a conservative whom I respect a great deal and she happens to be smart, articulate, and a very good writer. It has nothing to do with sexism, it has to do with elitism in the best sense of the word...the GOP needs to get over its glorification of all things sub-par.