Is Minnesota trending Republican?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I wonder if anyone still believes this.

I say the trend quit before 2004, was never that big anyway, and has mostly been reversed.

[MaC]

I think if nothing else it would be funny if it did to watch your reaction. 

[Colin]

Minnesota is staying put. The Northeast area around Lake Superior and the inner-cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul will be cancelled out by the conservative suburbs and rural areas. So you'll continue to have a balance there. I don't even think its trending anyway, it's staying nearly equalized with the Democrats having a slight advantage.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Even in 2000 it wasn't trending Republican. Like other inland states, it was trending anti-Democratic, not pro-Republican. Now it is getting more Democratic, because Democrats started acting more like Democrats again.

[Jake]

I'm not a fan of talking about trends. They're relative, change easily, and rarely are sustained long term things. Based on some criteria, you could say Minnesota was trending Republican at some point recently. That's not happening anymore.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Minnesota is staying put. The Northeast area around Lake Superior and the inner-cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul will be cancelled out by the conservative suburbs and rural areas. So you'll continue to have a balance there. I don't even think its trending anyway, it's staying nearly equalized with the Democrats having a slight advantage.

No that's not entirely true. Go look at the state leg maps I posted. The GOP got beaten badly even in rural areas.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Minnesota, IMO, can be considered a solid Democratic state nationally, and an even stronger Democratic state locally and statewide.  Just look at 2004 - a 2 pt win for Dubya, but a 4 pt loss in MN.  In anything but a solid GOP win (lets say 53-47 in PV), Minnesota, as of right now, is a Democratic state.  And if the suburbs of Minneapolis trend the same way as suburbs across the country, it will become even more Democratic. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

trend the same way as suburbs across the country, it will become even more Democratic. 

Please give my regards to Reps. Busby, Duckworth, Hafen, Stender, Mejias, Kilroy, [Lois] Murphy, Feder, Kellam and Burner.

I may have missed some people out. Oh yes; Wetterling...

You can probably add Lucas to that list as well (have a look at the KY-4 county results).

[jerusalemcar5]

trend the same way as suburbs across the country, it will become even more Democratic. 

Please give my regards to Reps. Busby, Duckworth, Hafen, Stender, Mejias, Kilroy, [Lois] Murphy, Feder, Kellam and Burner.

I may have missed some people out. Oh yes; Wetterling...

You can probably add Lucas to that list as well (have a look at the KY-4 county results).

Yes they all lost, but I think you can definitely say that suburbs have started moving more Democratic even if they are still electing Republicans.

[Alcon]

trend the same way as suburbs across the country, it will become even more Democratic. 

Please give my regards to Reps. Busby, Duckworth, Hafen, Stender, Mejias, Kilroy, [Lois] Murphy, Feder, Kellam and Burner.

I may have missed some people out. Oh yes; Wetterling...

You can probably add Lucas to that list as well (have a look at the KY-4 county results).

I don't think all suburbs are trending Democratic, but WA suburbs most certainly are.   It just happens that WA-8 contains fast-growing exurbs that are making it trend less significantly to the left.  Seattle suburbs, and suburbs in many cities, are trending Democrat.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

but WA suburbs most certainly are.

Oh, I know that. WA-8 was really only added for completeness

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some are, and some have done and have ceased to do so, while other may well be swinging in the other direction. In most cases it's probably hard to tell for sure.

The problem with trends (unless backed up by demographic movement; so a suburb that ceases to become suburban and which starts to vote heavily Democratic, will likely to continue to do so and so on) is that they're only of any use up to the date of the last election.

But you knew that anyway

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes they all lost, but I think you can definitely say that suburbs have started moving more Democratic even if they are still electing Republicans.

You've missed my point.

Most of America swung towards the Democrats this year.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I may have missed some people out. Oh yes; Wetterling...

The district Wetterling ran is mostly exurban, quite different from the inner suburbs. Plus it has a mini-Bible Belt area around Sherburne and Wright counties, quite different from anywhere else in Minnesota. Even most of the rural areas aren't like that.

One could point instead to Sestak, [Patrick] Murphy, Perlmutter, Courtney, [Chris] Murphy, McNerney, Klein, Hall.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The district Wetterling ran is mostly exurban, quite different from the inner suburbs.

An exurb is just a type of suburb
Besides, I never mentioned anything about inner suburbs.

And Wetterling would have won if she'd polled stronger in the more middle suburban bits towards the south of the district.
But the district is a little different to most of those on the list o/c. Which is why I added as an afterthought.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You could do, but you'd also be guilty of coming to a conclusion and then looking for evidence to back up this conclusion. And also of missing my point (which can't be a hard one to work out... c'mon people...)

Looking at this district-by-district:

PA-7 is a classic suburban district o/c. Whether Sestak would have won without Weldon's creaky campaign followed by the public exposure of his dodgy dealings and the like is neither here nor there.

PA-8 is a more mixed district with an interesting range of suburbs. Quite an interesting district actually.

CO-7 actually leans towards being more of a blue collar suburban district.

CT-2 and CT-5 are really more examples of the typical (southern) New England patchwork of suburbs, old mill towns and so on, than anything else.

McNerney only won because his opponent was (and is) blatently corrupt... he would have lost to a generic Republican and I think he'll lose in 2008.

...and I'll give you Klein and Hall.

And on the flip-side of the coin:

To some degree or other, nearly all of the districts on my list are either classic suburban districts, or are at least close to being so.

[Conan]

trend the same way as suburbs across the country, it will become even more Democratic. 

Please give my regards to Reps. Busby, Duckworth, Hafen, Stender, Mejias, Kilroy, [Lois] Murphy, Feder, Kellam and Burner.

I may have missed some people out. Oh yes; Wetterling...

You can probably add Lucas to that list as well (have a look at the KY-4 county results).

Did you happen to notice that we are gaining in those districts? THat means trend is in our way. Ferguson (R-NJ) will have another fight in 2008. Garrett (R-NJ) will be gone by 2010/2012.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Did you happen to notice that we are gaining in those districts?

Yes. In some of them.

Did you happen to notice similer (and often much larger) gains in... er... most districts?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No it doesn't... look... are you familer with the concept of national swing?

[Beet]

Maybe the Dems need to emphasize suburban issues like gun control more often. The vast majority of people live in the suburbs, and those who don't want to. You can't escape it.

[Alcon]

Maybe the Dems need to emphasize suburban issues like gun control more often. The vast majority of people live in the suburbs, and those who don't want to. You can't escape it.

I can't imagine that emphasising gun control is going to help in the suburbs more than it will hurt in blue collar, working-class district.  I can't see many suburban GOP people switching over based on gun control.

[Beet]

Maybe the Dems need to emphasize suburban issues like gun control more often. The vast majority of people live in the suburbs, and those who don't want to. You can't escape it.

I can't imagine that emphasising gun control is going to help in the suburbs more than it will hurt in blue collar, working-class district.  I can't see many suburban GOP people switching over based on gun control.

I don't think a lot of these people are GOP people so to speak, they are more like independents or weak identifiers, maybe even Democrats who voted Republican once in a while based on taxes. What the Dems need to do is (locally) emphasize the issue. It's one more thing to talk about other than just economics.

[Saxwsylvania]

Maybe the Dems need to emphasize suburban issues like gun control more often. The vast majority of people live in the suburbs, and those who don't want to. You can't escape it.

I can't imagine that emphasising gun control is going to help in the suburbs more than it will hurt in blue collar, working-class district.  I can't see many suburban GOP people switching over based on gun control.

I don't think a lot of these people are GOP people so to speak, they are more like independents or weak identifiers, maybe even Democrats who voted Republican once in a while based on taxes. What the Dems need to do is (locally) emphasize the issue. It's one more thing to talk about other than just economics.

Why?  Gun control, as an issue, is dead in the Democratic party.  How many candidates won this year in red districts who emphasized gun control?

Besides, gun control is just silly.  If you take away the guns, then the criminals will still get to them, and honest law-abiding citizens will be defenseless.  Even if criminals somehow can't get their hands on a gun, they would just use another weapon. 

A lot of Dem candidates in red states have been doomed because of the NRA.  The Coalition for Gun Control is not as effective.

[Colin]

Minnesota is staying put. The Northeast area around Lake Superior and the inner-cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul will be cancelled out by the conservative suburbs and rural areas. So you'll continue to have a balance there. I don't even think its trending anyway, it's staying nearly equalized with the Democrats having a slight advantage.

No that's not entirely true. Go look at the state leg maps I posted. The GOP got beaten badly even in rural areas.

I was talking about national elections. I could give two sh**ts about the composition of the state legislature in MN unless I move there. Especially since state legislature elections show trends within the state party not the national party as a whole.

[Beet]

Maybe the Dems need to emphasize suburban issues like gun control more often. The vast majority of people live in the suburbs, and those who don't want to. You can't escape it.

I can't imagine that emphasising gun control is going to help in the suburbs more than it will hurt in blue collar, working-class district.  I can't see many suburban GOP people switching over based on gun control.

I don't think a lot of these people are GOP people so to speak, they are more like independents or weak identifiers, maybe even Democrats who voted Republican once in a while based on taxes. What the Dems need to do is (locally) emphasize the issue. It's one more thing to talk about other than just economics.

Why?  Gun control, as an issue, is dead in the Democratic party.  How many candidates won this year in red districts who emphasized gun control?

And how many lost in suburban districts who didn't emphasize gun control because they were afraid that it was a dead issue? Even though large majorities of the public, 60-70%, support more stringent security measures for guns?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are no weapons that are as deadly as guns, generally speaking. Gun control opponents constantly try to stereotype gun control advocates as trying to "take away the guns," but that just isn't the case. Advocates want to make guns safer, and enact measures to make sure that criminals don't have easy access to them. The only ban enacted, a ban on assault weapons, proved to be very effective. The number of assault weapons traced to crime scenes dropped 45% after the enactment of the ban. According to one article, deaths caused by guns dropped from 38,505 in 1994 to 29,573 in 2001, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While crime experts say the drop resulted from several factors, such as fewer gang shootings involving crack cocaine, they cite the assault weapons ban and other gun controls passed in 1993 and 1994 as among the causes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not saying Dems should emphasize gun control in every district. I'm just saying that districts are differently and not every district is vehemently opposed to gun control. In some (most) districts, it is favored.

[ilikeverin]

Minnesota is just kind of muddling around.  I think this election year was a good indication of where we are: moderate, slightly Dem leaning.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The district Wetterling ran is mostly exurban, quite different from the inner suburbs.

An exurb is just a type of suburb
Besides, I never mentioned anything about inner suburbs.

And Wetterling would have won if she'd polled stronger in the more middle suburban bits towards the south of the district.
But the district is a little different to most of those on the list o/c. Which is why I added as an afterthought.

Those parts at the south of the district aren't really "middle suburban", they might be in terms of distance from the city centers but they have much more to do with all that crap to the north of them than anything south of Blaine (ever wonder why I hate suburbs so much? Those are the ones I'm most familiar with ) And they're full of megachurches and the same type of religious right nuttery common to the north, and lack the blue collar areas in the south metro.

That district has a lot more to do with those districts around Atlanta than anywhere else in the Midwest. It's really a rather solid GOP district, the only reason it was so heavily targeted was the misconception Wetterling was a strong candidate since she overperformed in 2004 (of course we now see this was due to Kennedy being a terrible candidate, but the GOP wasn't willing to admit that with him as their Senate nominee), and that she was running against the looney Bachmann (and note that considering most of Binkowski's vote would've gone toward Wetterling, she didn't do that bad compared to other GOP showings in the district).

Believe me when I say people like Bachmann don't get elected in most of the rest of Minnesota, and I can assure you Bachmann would not get elected in any of the other districts mentioned.

I was talking about national elections. I could give two sh**ts about the composition of the state legislature in MN unless I move there. Especially since state legislature elections show trends within the state party not the national party as a whole.

See map in signature.

The Democrats also now hold all 3 outstate House districts. We have all the outstate districts and the 2 Twin Cities districts. The Republicans only have 1 suburban district and 2 suburban/exurban/semi-rural districts. We hold almost all the rural areas now.

Maybe the Dems need to emphasize suburban issues like gun control more often. The vast majority of people live in the suburbs, and those who don't want to. You can't escape it.

WRONG. DEAD DEAD WRONG.

[Colin]

I was talking about national elections. I could give two sh**ts about the composition of the state legislature in MN unless I move there. Especially since state legislature elections show trends within the state party not the national party as a whole.

See map in signature.

The Democrats also now hold all 3 outstate House districts. We have all the outstate districts and the 2 Twin Cities districts. The Republicans only have 1 suburban district and 2 suburban/exurban/semi-rural districts. We hold almost all the rural areas now.

Well Kennedy was a horrible candidate running in a horrible year. Minnesota had a few Republican marginals that switched in a year that was extremely bad for Republicans. Not really anything drastic. About the same as saying PA is trending Democratic because of the loss of Santorum, the PA House, and two House districts. Really these changes are nothing more than average election-by-election change by the body politic in a state that is rather closely devided between Democrats and Republicans. I believe that neither your state nor mine is undergoing any sort of major trend beside the 2006 national trend which was Republicans got beaten badly.