Minnesota/Iowa/Wisconsin

[Devils30]

The media is lumping these 3 states in with Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan when talking about midwest. Does anyone else think Trump will underperform in these 3 states? The Wisconsin polls are not very promising for Trump at all and no one has polled Iowa recently but the January polls were not terribly friendly for Trump either.

[Ljube]

MN, WI and IA are not Trump country.

[TJ in Oregon]

Iowa could be close bit WI and MN will be lopsided for the Dem unless Trump wins in a blowout. Trump is a terrible fit for the Upper Midwest.

[pho]

Under perform relative to OH and PA, yes. Probably not on the national level though.

[Devils30]

I think this is really Trump's best and possibly only path to 270

[Figueira]

While I think he will underperform a bit in MN and WI, I'm not so sure about IA.

[Virginiá]

Not sure about Minnesota, but right now, there is nothing to suggest he will win Wisconsin, or even lose by anything short of double digits. His success in Iowa seems dubious at best considering past statements and Iowa's modest Democratic tendencies:

Iowa:



Wisconsin:

[DS0816]

I think this is really Trump's best and possibly only path to 270

In that scenario, bellwethers Colorado and Virginia would definitely flip for Donald Trump. If you want to envision Pennsylvania also flipping for Trump, you have to include Iowa and New Hampshire—before Pennsylvania.

[Indy Texas]

It makes no sense at all.

MN/IA/WI aren't states with industrial bases in secular decline like OH/MI/PA.

They have a much bigger agricultural presence.

Their residents tend to be better-educated and have lower rates of poverty.

They are much more racially homogeneous than OH/MI/PA with a disproportionate number of white people of German/Norwegian/Dutch ancestry.

Basically, they're some of the least hospitable states to Donald Trump.

[President Johnson]

MN, WI and IA are not Trump country.

Yes. The Donald should focus on Pennsylvania and Michigan (and Ohio of course).

[Heisenberg]

The only realistic way New Hampshire would be in play is if a lot of angry women left, didn't vote, or were thrown in prison, I think.

[AmericanNation]

It makes no sense at all.

MN/IA/WI aren't states with industrial bases in secular decline like OH/MI/PA.

They have a much bigger agricultural presence.

Their residents tend to be better-educated and have lower rates of poverty.

They are much more racially homogeneous than OH/MI/PA with a disproportionate number of white people of German/Norwegian/Dutch ancestry.

Basically, they're some of the least hospitable states to Donald Trump.

Basically.
The GOP "establishment" in Wisconsin (Iowa to some degree) was basically the only organization in the country to derail the Trump train.  The "establishment" will back him eventually (somewhat grudgingly) and he has a lot of appeal with 'Reagan' democrats.

Can he win? yes, but it's different than the eastern rust belt.

[Devils30]

The Scandanavian influence in WI/MN/IA helps Dems this time around. Trump does better with the Appalachian crowd that identifies as "American." I don't consider Michigan really in play this time around, not with Dems winning that open senate seat easily in 2014 and Obama by nearly 10 last time. PA is really hard for the GOP too, they really need both a huge gain in western PA without a decline in metro Philly. Places like Chester and Berks could easily swing back to the Dems from 2012, especially Chester where Romney was a good fit.