Posted on 01/02/2003 11:16:39 AM PST by No Dems 2004
Is the Minnesotan electorate changing?
That’s a question I’ve been asking myself recently, when I’ve looked at the voting trends of this once-Democratic bastion over the past decade. Minnesota, the only state that hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential nominee since 1972, has been showing much stronger support for Republicans in almost all levels of government recently—and I’m not just talking about the 2002 results.
Consider the following voting data:
Minnesota was part of the Republican sweep in 1994, when Rod Grams won a US Senate seat 49%-44%. The GOP also won the state’s gubernatorial race in 1994 64%-34%.
1996 was a bad year for Republicans at the presidential level, but Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone was re-elected by just 51%-42%, not a real landslide for a Democrat in a supposedly heavily Democratic state.
In the 3-way gubernatorial race of 1998, Republican Norm Coleman finished a very close second after Independent Jesse Ventura. Ventura received 37% of the vote, Coleman 35% and Democrat Humphrey 28%. What’s more, exit polling data showed which way voters would have voted if Ventura hadn’t been on the ballot. Coleman led Humphrey by 10 percentage points.
There has been gradual movement toward the GOP in the state’s congressional delegation. In 1998, Democrats led 6-2. In 2000, the Dems led 5-3. Now, in 2002, it’s a 4-4 tie between the parties.
In 1998, Democrats led the GOP 42-24 in the state senate and 70-64 in the state house of representatives. Just before the 2002 elections, the GOP led 71-63 in the state house, while the Dems led 39-27 in the state senate. Now, after the mid-term, the GOP leads 82-52 in the state house, while the Dems have been reduced to a slender 35-31 edge in the state senate.
Throughout the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush was extremely competitive in Minnesota, often holding a slight edge in independent surveys. On Election Day, Gore carried the state by the slenderest of margins 48%-46%. Naturally, the Democrats blamed Ralph Nader who took about 5% of the vote in Minnesota that year. But exit polling data showed that, had Ralph Nader not been on the ballot, Gore would only have widened his lead to about 4 points (roughly 52%-48%) in a 2-way race. That’s hardly a resounding margin for a “Democratic state”, especially when you consider Gore’s margins in states like Massachusetts, Hawaii or Rhode Island, with Nader on the ballot.
Republicans narrowly lost Rod Grams’ US Senate seat in 2000. But in 2002, even before Paul Wellstone died, the Democrats were struggling to keep Wellstone’s US Senate seat. After he died, favorite son Walter Mondale failed to retain the seat for his party, losing to Norm Coleman.
The 2002 elections also saw Republican Tim Pawlenty comfortably winning the open, 3-way gubernatorial race (44%-36%). The GOP also won the statewide offices for secretary of state and state auditor.
Finally, exit polling data over the past 8 or 10 years has shown that registered Democrats only narrowly outnumber Republicans in major elections. This contrasts sharply with heavily Democratic states.
Of great significance is the fact that Minnesota Republicans are truly conservative. Unlike the notorious RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), which are found in copious numbers in state governments like New York or Connecticut, the Minnesota GOP generally reflects strong conservative values on social issues. For instance, all the successful statewide GOP candidates in Minnesota in this past election were regarded as pro-life and were endorsed by pro-life groups. Before 2002, 2 out of the 3 Republicans in the state’s congressional delegation were regarded as strongly pro-life and all were regarded as opposing the homosexual agenda. Amazingly, in yet another sign of the state’s socially conservative bent, 2 of the 5 Democrats in the state’s congressional delegation were also regarded as pro-life. Minnesota’s Republican-controlled state house of representatives has few friends on the left, either.
So, what does all this mean? Is this just ephemeral, meaningless data, or is it a long term trend? My guess is the latter. The trend nationwide in states with a conservative undercurrent has been all away from the Democratic Party (or the “Democrat Farmer Labor Party” as it’s known in the North Star state). I wouldn’t venture to say that the GOP is the majority party there, but it’s certainly more than it used to be. Democratic liberalism, stupidity and self-destructive tactics have caused their party to implode in many of their former strongholds in the South and Midwest.
With 10 electoral votes at stake, the Democrats can ill afford to lose Minnesota, and the Republicans mustn’t miss the opportunity to chip away at the Democratic base. A recent survey found that a large majority of Minnesotans approve of President Bush’s job performance. The message to him and his team is that the state isn’t just that it’s winnable, but that it’s very winnable and should be consistently cultivated for 2004.
Two other noteworthy trends-- 7th District Congressman Conlin Peterson is the northernmost "Blue Dog" democrat and the first of his party to call on Gore to throw in the towel (after he lost the legal recount), 6th Distict Congresscritter who tried to market himself as a Peterson-like Blue Dog and suceeded in 2000, lost handilly in 2002.
New Hampshire now sends four "Men" to Washington as representatives of the state. There is not a day of military service among them: isn't that a shame.
As far as I am concerned, Minnesota's biggest contribution to the conservative effort this year. Imagine, an incoming freshman Republican congressman who had balllzzzz enough to serve in a fighting formation of this country.
What a novelty!!! He'll actually speak with some credibility when it comes to military issues, unlike Weldon, Bradley, Shays, etc, etc. Money well spent for those of you who contributed.
The gradual shift to conservative thought has more to do with the aging and death of the Democrats that reigned in the 50s and 60s.
The Wellstone Death Rally repulsed the moderate wishy washys enough to get up and actually vote. The thought that conservatives can retain power here for years to come may be wishful thinking.
Or maybe it's because the rural vote long went Democratic. Essentially conservative states like the Dakotas have elected Democrats to Congress because of agrarian concerns and price supports. Now that's not so much an issue in an increasingly urban Minnesota. Maybe the ethnic tie and solidarity between urban and rural Scandinavians has also been weakened.
LOL, I just learned how to do that. You are 6004, I am impressed. I am mad at myself for lurking so long before I registered! I was disappointed to see I was 20,000something.
Bush was competitive in 2000 when he didn't have 60+% popularity against a strong environmentalist in Maine and Washington. I fail to see how he will Not be competitive this go-around, as you suggest. And I don't think Michigan will become much more urban by 2004 than it was in 2000, when Bush lost by 4% on the strength of labor GOTV dwarfing ours. That's a long-shot??
Maybe this is all semantics, but I think y'all are being much too tentative. Bush is going for a landslide, which even if he doesn't get it will force the Rat to be on the defensive, spending all their $$ on the Left Coast, the Mid-West, NE and Florida and conceeding the rest of the country.
In Minnesota, the trend seems to be in the opposite direction. Their political ethos may be that of a Scandinavian village threatened with starvation: don't make waves, stick together, share everything, don't stand out or call attention to yourself too much. Economic growth and population mobility have modified this in the direction of modern commercial individualism.
In the 1960s Daniel Elazar studied the political cultures of various states in terms of individualism, traditionalism, and moralism. It looks relevant to your argument. Southern states and those with strong Continental European Catholic or Lutheran roots tend towards traditionalism. Some people might prefer collectivism or conformism to describe this type. Yankee or Puritan roots underly moralism. The individualist states are associated with the frontier or with the urban, commercial and pragmatic cultures of New York and Pennsylvania. See here for more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.