Which would flip first: Michigan or Minnesota?

[JRP1994]

Vote!

[ElectionsGuy]

Minnesota, as of recently. The state has trended more to the right over the past 30 years, so the argument for loyalty to the democratic party is slipping. Plus, I think if anything Detroit and the big cities such as Flint, Lansing, Ann Arbor, etc. some of which are heavily black, would hold the state back.

[The Free North]

Minnesota, as of recently. The state has trended more to the right over the past 30 years, so the argument for loyalty to the democratic party is slipping. Plus, I think if anything Detroit and the big cities such as Flint, Lansing, Ann Arbor, etc. some of which are heavily black, would hold the state back.

However, it is those very cities that are losing population the fastest. The Detroit metro area, has lost relatively few people compared to the city proper.

[ElectionsGuy]

Minnesota, as of recently. The state has trended more to the right over the past 30 years, so the argument for loyalty to the democratic party is slipping. Plus, I think if anything Detroit and the big cities such as Flint, Lansing, Ann Arbor, etc. some of which are heavily black, would hold the state back.

However, it is those very cities that are losing population the fastest. The Detroit metro area, has lost relatively few people compared to the city proper.

Yes, but as of now, they still hold a huge chunk of the population. Republicans also need to do better in the suburbs (Oakland and Macomb counties) if they want Michigan to flip before Minnesota.

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

In only one of these states a Republican has won over 50% in the past 20 years.

[IceSpear]

Again, Republicans absolutely dominated in Michigan in 2010. While they did somewhat well in Minnesota, they were still held at bay by the Democratic governor. So I'm gonna say Michigan.

[TDAS04]

Most likely Michigan.

[Flake]

In statewide elections or presidential elections?

[ElectionsGuy]

In statewide elections or presidential elections?

[Flake]

In statewide elections or presidential elections?

Sorry for my retail-customer-esque post. I do believe that Michigan will be easier for the GOP to win in Presidential years.

[ElectionsGuy]

In statewide elections or presidential elections?

Sorry for my retail-customer-esque post. I do believe that Michigan will be easier for the GOP to win in Presidential years.

Oh it's fine. I believed I've done that before too.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Michigan.  Minnesota has a stronger Democratic tradition and seems to be more polarized. 

[DS0816]

Minnesota's first election was in 1860. It carried the same as Michigan in every election, without a break, up till 1936. (They were both among the six states lost in 1912 by unseated Republican president William Howard Taft that flipped to former Republican president and Progressive nominee Teddy Roosevelt.) Then Michigan carried for losing Republicans Wendell Wilkie in 1940 and Thomas Dewey in 1948. From the 1960s to 1980s, Minnesota was the home state of Democratic presidential nominees and vice presidents Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale. So, from that period, there were disagreements between the two states in 1976, 1980, 1984, and 1988 with Michigan never having backed Mondale. So, the election cycles in which the two states carried differently: 1940, 1948, 1976, 1980, 1984, and 1988. Six elections of the 39 since the younger of the two states has been participating. Three of those election cycles were ones with a Minnesotan and the other state didn't carry. Mitigating factors part of the way. That's more than 80 percent (4 of every five elections) throughout both states' history. Not at all bad.

Since 1932, Minnesota has carried for all prevailing Democratic presidential candidates. Same distinction with Massachusetts. Only difference, of course, is that the margins in Massachusetts are excessive, relative to national margins, while the ones in Minnesota are efficient.

I'll say, as if I was confronted with a gun to my head or a knife to my throat, that the split difference would emerge with a Republican winning nationally by six or seven points that would be enough to bring in Michigan, for that strongly national performing Republican, while Minnesota (along with the likes of Massachusetts, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York, California…) would holds for the losing candidate from Team Blue.

[Mr. Illini]

Minnesota, but it'd be darn close.

[hopper]

Probably Michigan.

Most of the growth in Michigan in recent history has been around the Detroit Metro Area but not in Detroit obviously.  The main growth in Minnesota has been mostly in The Twin Cities particularly Minneapolis this decade that has been more to offset the Twin City Metro Area Population Growth.

[dmmidmi]

Minnesota may be less racially diverse, but the state's white population is more Democratic than Michigan's white population.

Therefore, my answer would be Michigan, but it would take a landslide for the GOP to win either state.

[Starpaul20]

It's hard to say, but considering all the factors I'd have to say Michigan.

[Cranberry]

Michigan.
Minnesota still has many rural white Democrats, while in Michigan mainly the urban population votes blue.

[dmmidmi]

Minnesota, as of recently. The state has trended more to the right over the past 30 years, so the argument for loyalty to the democratic party is slipping. Plus, I think if anything Detroit and the big cities such as Flint, Lansing, Ann Arbor, etc. some of which are heavily black, would hold the state back.

However, it is those very cities that are losing population the fastest. The Detroit metro area, has lost relatively few people compared to the city proper.

Mostly because this reflects people moving from the city to the suburbs.

The GOP's best shot at making Michigan competitive again is to re-target Macomb and Oakland County voters. Over the past 20 years, it seems like the two parties switched voter bases in the state--the UP, which used to be strongly Democratic, no longer is (Clinton won every county in the UP both times). Likewise the Detroit suburbs have largely slipped away from the GOP.

Of course, it feels like the GOP has been focusing a lot of attention on West Michigan, as if there are enough votes there to offset any losses in Metro Detroit (hint: there aren't, and the region is a GOP stronghold, anyway).

[jamesyons]

Michigan, but not by much, with the main reason being the success of Republicans in Michigan in 2010 with them winning all four executive offices while in Minnesota Democrats holding all executive offices.  Michigan seems more elastic with the Democrats having a high floor with the cities of Flint, Detroit, and Lansing while also having a high ceiling with Obama's performance in 2008.  Also Romney was not the best match for Michigan with his opposition to the auto bailout and he was not the best candidate for Republicans to win the white working class voters in Macomb and along the Interstate 94 corridor.  Republican have a formula for winning if they win these voters in addition to the moderate wealth suburbanites in Oakland county.  However in Minnesota Republicans have been losing ground in Rochester which although small does not help them, on the other hand Democrats have lost ground in Collin Peterson's district, Obama probably did about as badly as any Democrat would do there.  Lastly Minneapolis and St. Paul have trended towards the Democrats.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Well, in 2016, Minnesota. After that, who knows?

[Bojack Horseman]

Michigan. This state is getting redder every day, and that is why this lifelong (though it's only been 19 years in 4 days) Michigander is planning on fleeing when he graduates college. Minnesota seems too liberal to be only D+2. This is the state that never voted for Reagan and tied with three others for the first to reject a gay marriage ban at a popular vote. And while I've heard all the bad stuff about California, at least it's warm in the winter and I can get married there. But that's a speech for another thread.