How did Minnesota stay blue

[RINO Tom]

MN is anchored by a larger metro area than WI and IA, whereas MI had more non-college educated voters.

Trump did better among the college graduates demographic than among those with high school or less in Michigan, so not sure what you're talking about.

[RINO Tom]

MN is anchored by a larger metro area than WI and IA, whereas MI had more non-college educated voters.

Trump did better among the college graduates demographic than among those with high school or less in Michigan, so not sure what you're talking about.

Take a look at at the education part from the Minnesota exit poll.

[RINO Tom]

It's the richest non coastal state.

Neat stat.  So, why did it stay blue, though?  LOL.

[RINO Tom]

Minnesota is a "lucky" state. It's been voting Democrat since 1976, but not by overwhelming margins. Granted, Trump has been closest to flipping it since Ronald Reagan in 1984. I think Minnesota will eventually go Republican, then go solid red by 2032.

Minnesota is not going to go red. Trump had a perfect window to win and still did not win Minnesota. As a resident, here is what I can say.

1. Minnesota is wealthy. Whole parts of the upscale suburbs that were essentially Rockefeller Republicans through the post-war era have turned Democratic. Minnesota has a lot of old and new money that essentially all Democratic now.

2. We are the destination for a 7-state area of rural kids who are seeking a trendy city life. As places on the coast get more expensive, this will increase further. These people are almost uniformly college educated and liberal.

3. We have had some losses due to the loss of small farmers and due to working-class drift from the party. However, there are still good chunks of rural Minnesota that are liberal due to union history, strong farming, etc. Some areas are even going blue because they are so scenic and being taken over by more wealthy retirees.

4. The DFL is great at retail politics and signalling on issues as diverse as equal rights and prescription drugs. Our governor, Dayton, is kind of awkward but a nice guy. He is a WASP who's family founded Target, but I have seen him at events talking to old farmers, Native tribes, urban elites, and he is very warm and connects with people.

5. I feel Trump missed here partially because of we had already elected a non-establishment, non-politician (Jesse Ventura) as Governor, and we learned our lesson that that is not a good thing. The rest of the country- took them 6 months to learn with Trump.

Nice, some room for optimism for the GOP (though your strange post seems to suggest that wealthy retirees are some type of liberal demographic).

[RINO Tom]

Nice, some room for optimism for the GOP (though your strange post seems to suggest that wealthy retirees are some type of liberal demographic).
[/quote]

Haven't you heard brother man?

Millionaires on the coasts and in Minnesota are trending liberal. It is embarrassing to be a Republican nowadays if you are educated and a multimillionaire. Your friends think you are a pariah.
[/quote]

Hilarious to include those two together.  And whatever you say, hot shot.

[RINO Tom]

It's the richest non coastal state.

Neat stat.  So, why did it stay blue, though?  LOL.

He answered the question pretty well:

Under $50K (29%): Trump 45%, Clinton 45%
$50K-$100K (34%): Trump 48%, Clinton 45%
$100K or more (37%): Clinton 52%, Trump 41%

edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/minnesota/president

Don't be obtuse, friend.  That is clearly the exception that proves the rule in both the national and other state exit polls.  He said that as if MN being "rich" was an obvious indicator of it being Democratic, and the coincidence that its wealthy voters voted Democratic (again, against the national norm) is not a logical justification for assuming MN would be Democratic due to its wealth...?

[RINO Tom]

Evan McMullin

I did the math, if mcmullin had not run and those votes went to trump, trump would win Minnesota by 8000 votes

Trump still would have lost Minnesota without McMullin on the ballot...

1). Not everyone who voted for McMullin would have voted for Trump
2). Many people who voted for McMullin wouldn't have voted at all
3). Voting for a fringe right-wing independent indicated an extreme unwillingness to vote for Trump.

While all three might be true, #1 wouldn't be statistically relevant.  They MIGHT have stayed home, but the vast, vast majority of McMullin voters would have preferred Trump to Clinton, IMO.  They also seem like the types who would be unwilling to sit an election out ... excuse my stereotyping, but your Nader voter who might have stayed home isn't exactly my image of your Movement Conservative Warrior who voted for McMullin.  They're votin'.