should Democrats stop thinking of Wisconsin as a rust belt state?

[Cashew]

Feingold lost to Johnson by a higher margin than Clinton lost to Trump.

I would assume from this that Wisconsin is becoming more establishment friendly, and more pro free trade than neighboring Michigan.

As much as it pains me to say this, I have to conclude Bernie Sanders would struggle to swim against the current in this state.

[Bismarck]

Is economic populism dead in Wisconsin? No. Do democrats way overestimate how far left working class midwesterners are in Wisconsin and generally? Yes.

[Crumpets]

Is economic populism dead in Wisconsin? No. Do democrats way overestimate how far left working class midwesterners are in Wisconsin and generally? Yes.

This. I find it hard to believe that Bernie's views on BLM and health care were what won him the state in the primary.

[Blue3]

Feingold lost to Johnson by a higher margin than Clinton lost to Trump.

I would assume from this that Wisconsin is becoming more establishment friendly, and more pro free trade than neighboring Michigan.

As much as it pains me to say this, I have to conclude Bernie Sanders would struggle to swim against the current in this state.

No, Feingold was seen as too much of a hollow entitled establishment.

[Pericles]

Feingold lost to Johnson by a higher margin than Clinton lost to Trump.

I would assume from this that Wisconsin is becoming more establishment friendly, and more pro free trade than neighboring Michigan.

As much as it pains me to say this, I have to conclude Bernie Sanders would struggle to swim against the current in this state.

No, Feingold was seen as too much of a hollow entitled establishment.

And Clinton wasn't also seen as that?

I suppose you could attribute it to Ron Johnson being more popular than Trump but still.

[Blue3]

Feingold lost to Johnson by a higher margin than Clinton lost to Trump.

I would assume from this that Wisconsin is becoming more establishment friendly, and more pro free trade than neighboring Michigan.

As much as it pains me to say this, I have to conclude Bernie Sanders would struggle to swim against the current in this state.

No, Feingold was seen as too much of a hollow entitled establishment.

And Clinton wasn't also seen as that?

I suppose you could attribute it to Ron Johnson being more popular than Trump but still.

Feingold was seen more that way than Hillary.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No. The 'Rust Belt' refers to a socio-economic phenomenon, not to how a place votes.

[RINO Tom]

Let's start with the obvious:  The question in your thread title and the question you asked in the poll are, quite literally, two ENTIRELY different questions...

Now, for my opinionated point, a region shifting its politics doesn't make it a part of a different region.  Only on Atlas is this a reality.  New England was New England when it was voting GOP.  It's New England now.  Virginia isn't "not Southern" because it's voting differently than the rest of the region anymore than Georgia was "not Southern" in 1980.  Arkansas wasn't any less Southern than South Carolina in 1992 and 1996, etc.  It's the same idiotic shlt you hear here about why some area in the middle of the Mountain West is "partially Southernized" or some BS because it votes Republican.  You'd think on a forum full of political nerds, we wouldn't feel the need to group things that simplistically.

[MT Treasurer]

They really need to stop thinking of it as a blue state.

[RaphaelDLG]

I think a large part of Feingold's loss was the insane amount of money poured into the state in favor of Ron Johnson and a relative lack of $ for Feingold that allowed Johnson's ad smears to basically go unanswered. 

Johnson had the advantage of incumbency as well, even though RF was previously elected.

[ElectionsGuy]

Feingold lost to Johnson by a higher margin than Clinton lost to Trump.

I would assume from this that Wisconsin is becoming more establishment friendly, and more pro free trade than neighboring Michigan.

As much as it pains me to say this, I have to conclude Bernie Sanders would struggle to swim against the current in this state.

You know the reason why this is right? The Milwaukee area was devastating for Trump, Johnson did decent. Bernie Sanders would've definitely won the state against Trump.

[Xing]

Wisconsin has some rust belt-like areas, though it's not purely a rust belt state. It clearly has quite a bit of regional variety. I think Democrats just have to realize that they can't take the state for granted, and do have to win at least a little more than just Milwaukee and Madison (though Clinton would've scraped by with higher turnout in Milwaukee.) While Obama won the state easily both times, it's not like he ignored it.

[Wiz in Wis]

Wisconsin has some rust belt-like areas, though it's not purely a rust belt state. It clearly has quite a bit of regional variety. I think Democrats just have to realize that they can't take the state for granted, and do have to win at least a little more than just Milwaukee and Madison (though Clinton would've scraped by with higher turnout in Milwaukee.) While Obama won the state easily both times, it's not like he ignored it.

THIS. Obama was in Wisconsin in both 08 and 12 when it was clear he was going to win both times. He showed up, that mattered.

[BoAtlantis]

Wisconsin has some rust belt-like areas, though it's not purely a rust belt state. It clearly has quite a bit of regional variety. I think Democrats just have to realize that they can't take the state for granted, and do have to win at least a little more than just Milwaukee and Madison (though Clinton would've scraped by with higher turnout in Milwaukee.) While Obama won the state easily both times, it's not like he ignored it.

THIS. Obama was in Wisconsin in both 08 and 12 when it was clear he was going to win both times. He showed up, that mattered.

2 of the 3 largest shifts occurred in Iowa and Ohio, a state she visited plenty of times.

Iowa   -15.20%
Maine -12.30%
Ohio   -11.10%
Michigan -9.70%
Wisconsin -7.70%
Minnesota   -6.20%
Pennsylvania -6.10%
New Hampshire   -5.20%

Trump didn't even visit MN until the last few days yet it shifted 6% for him anyway. Visiting the state is a nice gesture for the supporters but I doubt not visiting the state costed her more than a handful votes in WI.

[JohnCA246]

Wisconsin has some rust belt-like areas, though it's not purely a rust belt state. It clearly has quite a bit of regional variety. I think Democrats just have to realize that they can't take the state for granted, and do have to win at least a little more than just Milwaukee and Madison (though Clinton would've scraped by with higher turnout in Milwaukee.) While Obama won the state easily both times, it's not like he ignored it.

THIS. Obama was in Wisconsin in both 08 and 12 when it was clear he was going to win both times. He showed up, that mattered.

2 of the 3 largest shifts occurred in Iowa and Ohio, a state she visited plenty of times.

Iowa   -15.20%
Maine -12.30%
Ohio   -11.10%
Michigan -9.70%
Wisconsin -7.70%
Minnesota   -6.20%
Pennsylvania -6.10%
New Hampshire   -5.20%

Trump didn't even visit MN until the last few days yet it shifted 6% for him anyway. Visiting the state is a nice gesture for the supporters but I doubt not visiting the state costed her more than a handful votes in WI.

Honest question, doesn't investing in a state have more of an impact if the other candidate isn't responding? For instance, we can say going to Ohio multiple times didn't help much, but of course Trump was investing in that state too. I would imagine there is probably diminishing returns after a certain amount of visits and ads.

[BoAtlantis]

Wisconsin has some rust belt-like areas, though it's not purely a rust belt state. It clearly has quite a bit of regional variety. I think Democrats just have to realize that they can't take the state for granted, and do have to win at least a little more than just Milwaukee and Madison (though Clinton would've scraped by with higher turnout in Milwaukee.) While Obama won the state easily both times, it's not like he ignored it.

THIS. Obama was in Wisconsin in both 08 and 12 when it was clear he was going to win both times. He showed up, that mattered.

2 of the 3 largest shifts occurred in Iowa and Ohio, a state she visited plenty of times.

Iowa   -15.20%
Maine -12.30%
Ohio   -11.10%
Michigan -9.70%
Wisconsin -7.70%
Minnesota   -6.20%
Pennsylvania -6.10%
New Hampshire   -5.20%

Trump didn't even visit MN until the last few days yet it shifted 6% for him anyway. Visiting the state is a nice gesture for the supporters but I doubt not visiting the state costed her more than a handful votes in WI.

Honest question, doesn't investing in a state have more of an impact if the other candidate isn't responding? For instance, we can say going to Ohio multiple times didn't help much, but of course Trump was investing in that state too. I would imagine there is probably diminishing returns after a certain amount of visits and ads. Perhaps AZ was an example of a modest investment going a long way because the other side did not really respond, but I don't really know the situation there.

Didn't Trump visit AZ more than she did? Yet it shifted blue anyway.

AZ moderates were probably turned off by Trump's draconian rhetorics about immigrants. AZ of all states would know better than any state. TX as well.

[JohnCA246]

Wisconsin has some rust belt-like areas, though it's not purely a rust belt state. It clearly has quite a bit of regional variety. I think Democrats just have to realize that they can't take the state for granted, and do have to win at least a little more than just Milwaukee and Madison (though Clinton would've scraped by with higher turnout in Milwaukee.) While Obama won the state easily both times, it's not like he ignored it.

THIS. Obama was in Wisconsin in both 08 and 12 when it was clear he was going to win both times. He showed up, that mattered.

2 of the 3 largest shifts occurred in Iowa and Ohio, a state she visited plenty of times.

Iowa   -15.20%
Maine -12.30%
Ohio   -11.10%
Michigan -9.70%
Wisconsin -7.70%
Minnesota   -6.20%
Pennsylvania -6.10%
New Hampshire   -5.20%

Trump didn't even visit MN until the last few days yet it shifted 6% for him anyway. Visiting the state is a nice gesture for the supporters but I doubt not visiting the state costed her more than a handful votes in WI.

Honest question, doesn't investing in a state have more of an impact if the other candidate isn't responding? For instance, we can say going to Ohio multiple times didn't help much, but of course Trump was investing in that state too. I would imagine there is probably diminishing returns after a certain amount of visits and ads. Perhaps AZ was an example of a modest investment going a long way because the other side did not really respond, but I don't really know the situation there.

Didn't Trump visit AZ more than she did? Yet it shifted blue anyway.

AZ moderates were probably turned off by Trump's draconian rhetorics about immigrants. AZ of all states would know better than any state. TX as well.

Indeed, it looks like he made at least seven visits to AZ http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/29/donald-trump-arizona-phoenix-rally/92912374/.

 I was basing my post off of my loose memory about advertising from http://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/states-where-trump-clinton-spending-most-on-advertising/306377/