Chris Christie and Minnesota 2016:

[hopper]

Do you think Christie is a good fit idealogically for the state? Do you think he can do well in the "Iron Range" section of the state as well as Central Northeast part of the state as well in a general election? Yes I know both the Iron Range and the Central Northeast part of the state are Dem Strongholds.

[MATTROSE94]

Chris Christie could possibly carry Minnesota if the Democrats nominate either Joe Biden, Martin O'Malley, Deval Patrick, Howard Dean or Brian Schweitzer, but probably would not carry the state if he went up against Hillary Clinton.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I think it's possible for Christie to carry Minnesota under the right circumstances, but I do not believe it is very likely.  It seems as if Minnesota has been trending further to the left in recent elections.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

This is a false lead state at this point. I give him far better odds at carrying Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and of course NJ. If he starts winning any of those blue states, he won't need to think about Minnesota.

[Minnesota Mike]

I don't think Christie is a better fit for Minnesota than the nation as a whole.  Christie can come off as kind of a dick sometimes (part of his appeal for some) but while the Minnesota nice thing can be overblown I don't think being an @sshole plays that well here. 

[Minnesota Mike]

I think it's possible for Christie to carry Minnesota under the right circumstances, but I do not believe it is very likely.  It seems as if Minnesota has been trending further to the left in recent elections.

Minnesota always appears closer than it really is, one of the most inelastic states in the country. No Republican has gotten more 50%+ of the vote statewide since Arne Carlson for Governor in 1994 and besides Tim Pawlenty's very narrow 3 way win in 2006 no Republican has won a statewide race since 2002.  The key for Democrats is that the urban areas (Minneapolis, St Paul) while already dark blue are trending even bluer (Obama did better in 2012  in those cities than in 2008). 

[TDAS04]

Christie could possibly carry Minnesota, but it would be difficult. 

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

I think it's possible for Christie to carry Minnesota under the right circumstances, but I do not believe it is very likely.  It seems as if Minnesota has been trending further to the left in recent elections.

Minnesota always appears closer than it really is, one of the most inelastic states in the country. No Republican has gotten more 50%+ of the vote statewide since Arne Carlson for Governor in 1994 and besides Tim Pawlenty's very narrow 3 way win in 2006 no Republican has won a statewide race since 2002.  The key for Democrats is that the urban areas (Minneapolis, St Paul) while already dark blue are trending even bluer (Obama did better in 2012  in those cities than in 2008). 

That is true for St. Paul but Minneapolis.

Obama in Minneapolis 2008: 81.15%
Obama in St. Paul 2008: 75.58%

Obama in Minneapolis 2012: 80.27%
Obama in St. Paul 2012: 76.23%

However yes, Christie is a bad fit for Minnesota.

[Minnesota Mike]

I think it's possible for Christie to carry Minnesota under the right circumstances, but I do not believe it is very likely.  It seems as if Minnesota has been trending further to the left in recent elections.

Minnesota always appears closer than it really is, one of the most inelastic states in the country. No Republican has gotten more 50%+ of the vote statewide since Arne Carlson for Governor in 1994 and besides Tim Pawlenty's very narrow 3 way win in 2006 no Republican has won a statewide race since 2002.  The key for Democrats is that the urban areas (Minneapolis, St Paul) while already dark blue are trending even bluer (Obama did better in 2012  in those cities than in 2008). 

That is true for St. Paul but Minneapolis.

Obama in Minneapolis 2008: 81.15%
Obama in St. Paul 2008: 75.58%

Obama in Minneapolis 2012: 80.27%
Obama in St. Paul 2012: 76.23%

However yes, Christie is a bad fit for Minnesota.

Thanks for the correction. Was going from memory and screwed it up.  Still the trend in Minneapolis and St Paul is Democratic.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I think Minnesota will be a "lean" Democrat state, doubt it will go for Christie.

[pbrower2a]

Minnesota has voted only once for the Republican nominee for President since 1956, and it was the second-strongest state for George McGovern in 1972. which says something.

A Republican nominee would be winning an Eisenhower-style landslide to win Minnesota (Ike won it twice, also winning Massachusetts and Rhode Island in 1952 and 1956). Democrats would have to run an incredibly-flawed nominee to lose Minnesota in the Presidential election.

[TJ in Oregon]

I would expect him to be a particularly poor fit for the Upper Midwest but about average for the Rust Belt. The "loud white ethnic stereotype" will play okay in the industrial parts of the Midwest but I suspect for Minnesota Christie will end up saying something at some point that upsets their sensibilities for demeanor and they'll end up saying "O, O, Hillary's got this in the baig".

[Sec. of State Superique]

Only if Democrats choose Ralph Nader as their nominee and even so, I doubt Christie would win there!

[Brewer]

I still don't understand why folks view this Minnesota as a toss-up state. It's not a toss-up just because the election results are less than ten points apart. Yeah, results seem close, but they're not moving from that point, at least not as soon as 2016, and I doubt 2020. As Minnesota Mike said, this state is inelastic. It's firmly Democratic.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yeah Christie is a terrible fit for the state.  We don't like conservatives who try to appear moderate by acting like dicks.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I think it's possible for Christie to carry Minnesota under the right circumstances, but I do not believe it is very likely.  It seems as if Minnesota has been trending further to the left in recent elections.

Minnesota always appears closer than it really is, one of the most inelastic states in the country. No Republican has gotten more 50%+ of the vote statewide since Arne Carlson for Governor in 1994 and besides Tim Pawlenty's very narrow 3 way win in 2006 no Republican has won a statewide race since 2002.  The key for Democrats is that the urban areas (Minneapolis, St Paul) while already dark blue are trending even bluer (Obama did better in 2012  in those cities than in 2008). 

Also, from just browsing some random maps, it appears rural Minnesota is not overly GOP-friendly either.  Is that the case?  It doesn't seem to have the dynamic that, say, Illinois does where Cook County is very blue, the collar counties are purple to light red and Downstate (with some exceptions like the STL area, Champaign, the Quad Cities, some counties in Southern Illinois that still love their moderate Democrats, etc.) is very red.

[Mister Mets]

In three of the last four presidential elections, Minnesota was within four points of the popular vote (in 2004, it went for Kerry by 3.48%, a difference of 5.88% from the popular vote.)

So Christie could easily win the state, since it wouldn't be unprecedented for him to win a general election by four points.

Things would be different if Amy Klobuchar were the Democratic nominee, but there's nothing about Hillary Clinton that gives her a particular advantage in the state relative to the rest of the country.

[Minnesota Mike]

I think it's possible for Christie to carry Minnesota under the right circumstances, but I do not believe it is very likely.  It seems as if Minnesota has been trending further to the left in recent elections.

Minnesota always appears closer than it really is, one of the most inelastic states in the country. No Republican has gotten more 50%+ of the vote statewide since Arne Carlson for Governor in 1994 and besides Tim Pawlenty's very narrow 3 way win in 2006 no Republican has won a statewide race since 2002.  The key for Democrats is that the urban areas (Minneapolis, St Paul) while already dark blue are trending even bluer (Obama did better in 2012  in those cities than in 2008). 

Also, from just browsing some random maps, it appears rural Minnesota is not overly GOP-friendly either.  Is that the case?  It doesn't seem to have the dynamic that, say, Illinois does where Cook County is very blue, the collar counties are purple to light red and Downstate (with some exceptions like the STL area, Champaign, the Quad Cities, some counties in Southern Illinois that still love their moderate Democrats, etc.) is very red.

True. While rural Minnesota leans Republican on the Presidential level it is not as Republican as a lot of  the rural Midwest.  This is a holdover from the days of when the Farmer-Labor party was king in rural Minnesota.  Farmer-Labor  was merged with Democrats in 1944 by Hubert Humphrey to form the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party (DFL). As the old Farmer-Laborites pass on rural Minnesota is slowly trending more Republican but since rural Minnesota is losing population this does really help Republicans statewide much.