Minnesota- Why can't the GOP get the job done there?

[barfbag]

Minnesota drives me crazy. I actually had it going for Romney along with Michigan, Florida, and Colorado.

[PolitiJunkie]

Minnesota drives me crazy. I actually had it going for Romney along with Michigan, Florida, and Colorado.

Why in the world did you think there was a more-likely-than-not chance of Minnesota going for Romney? I get that it wasn't impossible, but when you actually had to call each state, you genuinely believed Minnesota would go Romney? I got every state right except Florida.

[barfbag]

Minnesota drives me crazy. I actually had it going for Romney along with Michigan, Florida, and Colorado.

Why in the world did you think there was a more-likely-than-not chance of Minnesota going for Romney? I get that it wasn't impossible, but when you actually had to call each state, you genuinely believed Minnesota would go Romney? I got every state right except Florida.

The week before the election should be spent focusing on Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and possibly Pennsylvania. However, Democrats sent Bill Clinton their top rock star to a state they haven't lost since 1972 as if they were worried. Actually I had the state at 50/50. The states I was certain for Romney were MO, IN, NH, CO, and actually my upset was MI. I had FL at 49-49, NC at 50-50, and MN at 50-50.

[Famous Mortimer]

Minnesota is an solidly slightly blue state. If you get my meaning.

[PolitiJunkie]

Minnesota drives me crazy. I actually had it going for Romney along with Michigan, Florida, and Colorado.

Why in the world did you think there was a more-likely-than-not chance of Minnesota going for Romney? I get that it wasn't impossible, but when you actually had to call each state, you genuinely believed Minnesota would go Romney? I got every state right except Florida.

The week before the election should be spent focusing on Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and possibly Pennsylvania. However, Democrats sent Bill Clinton their top rock star to a state they haven't lost since 1972 as if they were worried. Actually I had the state at 50/50. The states I was certain for Romney were MO, IN, NH, CO, and actually my upset was MI. I had FL at 49-49, NC at 50-50, and MN at 50-50.

I guess you just suck at predictions then, probably because you involve too much wishful thinking.

[Brewer]

Out of the past three GOP candidates, I saw Romney as the most able to do well in Minnesota. Honestly, I did think he was going to do better. I'm exposed to a whole lot of liberal MN though, since I'm in St. Louis County, but I thought I saw more 'Keep Minnesota Red' signs than usual.

[barfbag]

Minnesota drives me crazy. I actually had it going for Romney along with Michigan, Florida, and Colorado.

Why in the world did you think there was a more-likely-than-not chance of Minnesota going for Romney? I get that it wasn't impossible, but when you actually had to call each state, you genuinely believed Minnesota would go Romney? I got every state right except Florida.

The week before the election should be spent focusing on Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and possibly Pennsylvania. However, Democrats sent Bill Clinton their top rock star to a state they haven't lost since 1972 as if they were worried. Actually I had the state at 50/50. The states I was certain for Romney were MO, IN, NH, CO, and actually my upset was MI. I had FL at 49-49, NC at 50-50, and MN at 50-50.

I guess you just suck at predictions then, probably because you involve too much wishful thinking.

I do worse every time. In 2004 I predicted every state correctly and a 51-49 Bush victory.

[PolitiJunkie]

Minnesota drives me crazy. I actually had it going for Romney along with Michigan, Florida, and Colorado.

Why in the world did you think there was a more-likely-than-not chance of Minnesota going for Romney? I get that it wasn't impossible, but when you actually had to call each state, you genuinely believed Minnesota would go Romney? I got every state right except Florida.

The week before the election should be spent focusing on Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and possibly Pennsylvania. However, Democrats sent Bill Clinton their top rock star to a state they haven't lost since 1972 as if they were worried. Actually I had the state at 50/50. The states I was certain for Romney were MO, IN, NH, CO, and actually my upset was MI. I had FL at 49-49, NC at 50-50, and MN at 50-50.

I guess you just suck at predictions then, probably because you involve too much wishful thinking.

I do worse every time. In 2004 I predicted every state correctly and a 51-49 Bush victory.

What about Senate races? I'm the opposite as you; your predictions are influenced by wishful thinking whereas I slightly underestimate my party. I was 32/33 in 2012, incorrectly predicting that the Republican would win in North Dakota. And I predicted a 3-point Obama victory rather than a 4-point one, and I was wrong about Florida.

[barfbag]

Minnesota drives me crazy. I actually had it going for Romney along with Michigan, Florida, and Colorado.

Why in the world did you think there was a more-likely-than-not chance of Minnesota going for Romney? I get that it wasn't impossible, but when you actually had to call each state, you genuinely believed Minnesota would go Romney? I got every state right except Florida.

The week before the election should be spent focusing on Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and possibly Pennsylvania. However, Democrats sent Bill Clinton their top rock star to a state they haven't lost since 1972 as if they were worried. Actually I had the state at 50/50. The states I was certain for Romney were MO, IN, NH, CO, and actually my upset was MI. I had FL at 49-49, NC at 50-50, and MN at 50-50.

I guess you just suck at predictions then, probably because you involve too much wishful thinking.

I do worse every time. In 2004 I predicted every state correctly and a 51-49 Bush victory.

What about Senate races? I'm the opposite as you; your predictions are influenced by wishful thinking whereas I slightly underestimate my party. I was 32/33 in 2012, incorrectly predicting that the Republican would win in North Dakota. And I predicted a 3-point Obama victory rather than a 4-point one, and I was wrong about Florida.

I underestimated my party in 2008 actually and slightly in 2004. I'm checking my files for senate predictions.

[barfbag]

Minnesota drives me crazy. I actually had it going for Romney along with Michigan, Florida, and Colorado.

Why in the world did you think there was a more-likely-than-not chance of Minnesota going for Romney? I get that it wasn't impossible, but when you actually had to call each state, you genuinely believed Minnesota would go Romney? I got every state right except Florida.

The week before the election should be spent focusing on Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and possibly Pennsylvania. However, Democrats sent Bill Clinton their top rock star to a state they haven't lost since 1972 as if they were worried. Actually I had the state at 50/50. The states I was certain for Romney were MO, IN, NH, CO, and actually my upset was MI. I had FL at 49-49, NC at 50-50, and MN at 50-50.

I guess you just suck at predictions then, probably because you involve too much wishful thinking.

I do worse every time. In 2004 I predicted every state correctly and a 51-49 Bush victory.

What about Senate races? I'm the opposite as you; your predictions are influenced by wishful thinking whereas I slightly underestimate my party. I was 32/33 in 2012, incorrectly predicting that the Republican would win in North Dakota. And I predicted a 3-point Obama victory rather than a 4-point one, and I was wrong about Florida.

I'm going to make a new thread for 2012 senate races.

[Ban my account ffs!]

North-central MN is moderately DFL... but that is pretty sticky.  Except in GOP wave years, the DFL will eek out a 5-10 point win every time.

Bemidji is kind of like a larger metro:  Within the city limits it's strongly DFL.  This is from college students as well as the fact that the old fogies just tend to support Democrats and be generally pretty liberal.

The surrounding townships are more GOP friendly, especially on a presidential level... even so they still tend to pick the DFLer.  

The district to my west on the state level has tended to be divided between a 55/45 GOP favored white population and a 90-10 DFL favored Native population.  So Democrats tend to win there, again, except in GOP wave eyars (like 2010).

Duluth is very DFL friendly and is genuinely liberal.  The Iron Range is also very DFL friendly... but is more socially conservative.  They love to talk about fishing and hunting... it dominates life in most of northern MN.  If you haven't gotten a deer yourself... someone will most surely be gifting you venison sausage for the holidays.  And it's not just rifle hunting... but bowhunting as well cuz hunting is that much fun to people.  (personally I think it's boring as hell)

When you hit a deer here... it is expected that you will try to salvage some of the meat.  Might as well try to get your money's worth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow8NCzzeFn0

[Hnv1]

Some questions:
-Why is Duluth so Liberal?
-What sociological trend makes people believe Wisconsin\Minn.\Mich. are up for grabs for the GOP? as I understand the region is generally Liberal socially along with a tradition of progressive politics

[Sol]

Some questions:
-Why is Duluth so Liberal?
-What sociological trend makes people believe Wisconsin\Minn.\Mich. are up for grabs for the GOP? as I understand the region is generally Liberal socially along with a tradition of progressive politics

Duluth and the adjacent counties are historical bastions of organized labor- the entire area, known as the Iron Range has thusly been very Democratic. It's a bit like Northern Ohio, except more Democratic. Furthermore, I believe Duluth has become a bit of a liberal stronghold- a lot of hippie types.

There's been something of an idea (not really accurate) in U.S. political circles that white working class male voters in the Midwest are something of a swing demographic. In fact, the GOP strategy in this respect has pretty much been centered around conquering places like the Iron Range.
Also, these states have significant GOP-friendly areas anyway, so it make the margins close even without these voters.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Though given Democratic collapses - or at least dangerously steep declines - in other historical strongholds of labour power, it's no longer really enough to point out that the Iron Range is, indeed, a historical stronghold of labour power. The question to ask is why has it remained resilient - or at least comparatively resilient: we shouldn't forget what happened in 2010 -  while Greater Pittsburgh (say) hasn't?

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

One thing that has hurt the GOP in Minnesota is that it has its share of quacks.  Michelle Bachmann is the latest and worst, but there was Allen Quist, the 1990 GOP Gubenatorial nominee who was embarrassed into resigning the nomination 9 days before the general election.  (Liberal Republican Arne Carlson actually beat incumbent DFLer Rudy Perpich.)  There was the somewhat unstable David Durenberger.  And there was Sen. Rod Grams, who was normal enough, but who was just too conservative for Minnesota. 

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

Some questions:
-Why is Duluth so Liberal?
-What sociological trend makes people believe Wisconsin\Minn.\Mich. are up for grabs for the GOP? as I understand the region is generally Liberal socially along with a tradition of progressive politics

Duluth and the adjacent counties are historical bastions of organized labor- the entire area, known as the Iron Range has thusly been very Democratic. It's a bit like Northern Ohio, except more Democratic. Furthermore, I believe Duluth has become a bit of a liberal stronghold- a lot of hippie types.

There's been something of an idea (not really accurate) in U.S. political circles that white working class male voters in the Midwest are something of a swing demographic. In fact, the GOP strategy in this respect has pretty much been centered around conquering places like the Iron Range.
Also, these states have significant GOP-friendly areas anyway, so it make the margins close even without these voters.

While it is sort of the capital of the Iron Range, people shouldn't misunderstand Duluth. It's a college town with a relatively educated populace and somewhat cosmopolitan atmosphere, especially in comparison to the rural areas around it, and sort of a gateway to Canada. Duluth is classic Midwestern small city liberalism just like Eau Claire or Iowa City and would be no matter where it was located.

[Mr. Illini]

It's a liberal culture. A mentioned previously, the Scandinavian culture is very left-leaning, collectivist, and tolerant of public institutions. The fact that there is quite a large metropolitan area present makes it a done deal. The GOP should focus elsewhere.

[Sol]

Though given Democratic collapses - or at least dangerously steep declines - in other historical strongholds of labour power, it's no longer really enough to point out that the Iron Range is, indeed, a historical stronghold of labour power. The question to ask is why has it remained resilient - or at least comparatively resilient: we shouldn't forget what happened in 2010 -  while Greater Pittsburgh (say) hasn't?

Correct me if I'm wrong Al (which I almost certainly am- you certainly know more about these things than me), but it seems to me that the Democratic collapse in working class areas has be been pretty overstated. The Iron Range votes D, Scranton-Wilkes-Barre votes D, the mill towns of rural New England vote D- and that's not even including non-white areas like the black belt. It seems to me that the really huge declines have been concentrated in Central Appalachia, and I'd argue it's due to a perfect storm of factors- local social conservatism, decline in the local industries during a Democratic presidency, etc.

[Lurker]

Though given Democratic collapses - or at least dangerously steep declines - in other historical strongholds of labour power, it's no longer really enough to point out that the Iron Range is, indeed, a historical stronghold of labour power. The question to ask is why has it remained resilient - or at least comparatively resilient: we shouldn't forget what happened in 2010 -  while Greater Pittsburgh (say) hasn't?

Correct me if I'm wrong Al (which I almost certainly am- you certainly know more about these things than me), but it seems to me that the Democratic collapse in working class areas has be been pretty overstated. The Iron Range votes D, Scranton-Wilkes-Barre votes D, the mill towns of rural New England vote D- and that's not even including non-white areas like the black belt. It seems to me that the really huge declines have been concentrated in Central Appalachia, and I'd argue it's due to a perfect storm of factors- local social conservatism, decline in the local industries during a Democratic presidency, etc.

Exit polls show that a solid majority of the working class voted Democratic in the last presidential election - a higher share of the vote than from any other "class", from what I remember. So I think you are right, this "collapse" has been overstated, though obviously in a large country like the US, there will always be vast regional differences in such trends.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Let's see-- a far-left, foul-mouthed comedian steals a Senate election there with the help of convicted felons, they elect a Democrat governor for the first time in 24 years, the Ron Paul types take over the state GOP, and the state Democratic party gives itself an automatic advantage by putting "Farmer-Labor" in its name.  Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

[windjammer]

Let's see-- a far-left, foul-mouthed comedian steals a Senate election there with the help of convicted felons, they elect a Democrat governor for the first time in 24 years, the Ron Paul types take over the state GOP, and the state Democratic party gives itself an automatic advantage by putting "Farmer-Labor" in its name.  Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

Stop. Franken didn't buy his election.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Correct me if I'm wrong Al (which I almost certainly am- you certainly know more about these things than me), but it seems to me that the Democratic collapse in working class areas has be been pretty overstated.

It's more a matter of things being more complicated than they first appear than the electoral collapse in question being overstated. And there is (as is often the way regarding this subject in America) confusion over terms being used and the groups being discussed. Because we don't really mean all working class voters (the Democratic Party is completely dependent on working class voters for its electoral security and future prospects: but they are mostly metropolitan - and I'm defining this in terms of the really huge cities only - and mostly from minorities. And they are not the people we have in mind, but they are most definitely working class). We mean certain specific types of working class voters. What we really have in mind are people who lives in places that used to (and sometimes still do) have local economies based around what used to be called staple industries (mining, steel, textiles, and so on). And these places are synonymous with the term 'working class' not just because these are all iconic industries, because they were/are - in most 'Western' countries - both great strongholds of labour power (as in both trade unionism and working class politics) and basically monolithically working class. And in many of these places, the electoral position of the Democratic Party has either severely eroded or essentially collapsed.

But not, of course, in all of these places. Local political culture is a huge issue I think (and is what I was hinting at in the post above).

And things are further complicated by the fact that there's a considerable crossover between 'places once dependent on (formerly) staple industries' and the Democratic Party's traditional hillbilly vote (for want of a better way of putting it), which - from the 1930s onwards at least - was also a 'class vote' (so to speak').

...have to go now, actually. More later...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Anyway, part the second (presumably much shorter). And on re-reading what's already been written, it's mostly a case of adding a couple of additional remarks:

The Iron Range votes D, Scranton-Wilkes-Barre votes D, the mill towns of rural New England vote D

And yet one of the iconic American industrial regions - Western Pennsylvania - has been the scene of a particularly dismal Democratic electoral collapse, even if Pittsburgh itself remains one of the great strongholds of the party. And so on and so forth.

Increasingly, we see bizarre electoral sights like that of Ohio in 2012:



Solid showings in some traditional heavy industry areas, catastrophic showings in others. This is the sort of electoral map that would once have made very little sense.

Which brings me back to the point I was making about the Iron Range: alright, it is a seriously working class area, and in the most stereotypical way possible. This explains its political past, but is now an insufficient answer - at least without further detail - to questions about its political present.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The answer may be found by comparing these two maps.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

@ Al

The key issue you're missing is race. In Madison, Duluth and St. Paul, there is no racialized other to hate. In Toledo, Youngstown, Flint and Pontiac, there is a significant Black community that has prevented the erosion of the white Democratic vote.

If you want to see a full white working class collapse map, look at 2010. Hideous, ghastly results in every city and state. Democrats actually lost very few votes among the "creative class", they were just massacred amongst downscale whites.